Extremist Animal rights idio...er..protesters

Pyro · August 24, 2005

however i do agree, extreme protesting is necessary, we cant let higher authorities do things we disagree with and not be able to 'fight' back. anyone can agree with this.

In my part of the world using violence to enforce the opinions of the minority on others is commonly refered to as "fascism".

The testing of medication on animals saves hundreds of thousands of human lives. Human life carries a severely higher value than that of animals in my book. I can sleep very comfortably at night knowing animals are slaughtered for my benefit.

The day there is a democratic decision made that testing on animals should be outlawed I am willing to accept that, should it ever happen. Until then, it would not be appropriate to post my opinion on those who would use violence and theft to make their opinion "matter". Those people simply do not deserve the priviledge of living in a modern democracy.

smooooth · August 24, 2005

The idiot who flamed on the first page has some basis, after all we do feel more remorse for our families (usually) than a rat.

I feel oh so very insulted by the guy who sings songs about RuneScape.

assassin_696 · August 24, 2005

The idiot who flamed on the first page has some basis, after all we do feel more remorse for our families (usually) than a rat.

I feel oh so very insulted by the guy who sings songs about RuneScape.

Oh well that was an unnecessary cheap shot. :? I'll let Bubsa destroy this phool 8)

willyhenriksen · August 24, 2005

some crazy people who didnt like that the minks got feeded to they got grown up and then killed them and took their fur and made clothes.

well its maybe not so nice but they released the animals and burned down the building, and as know, animals who has lived in small indoor rooms wont survive outside in the wild.

they did something worse then raising the animals to get their fur, they gave the minks a slow and painfull death.

stupid ones...

mad4u689 · August 24, 2005

Its just idiots like that, who make people like me (vegetarians) look bad. Just for the record, not all vegetarians are like that. I don't really care about animal testing, or eating animals. I'm just a vegetarian, no main reason, I just am. Go ahead and test on animals, if it betters humans, go for it.

Its also ok to not believe in it, and even protest against it. But there is such thing as crossing the line. PETA has crossed the line, making people like myself look like idiots. Screw you PETA, and all you idiotic protesters. Protest in peace god damit. :roll:

AD

Your post started out okay. It makes me sad that people like this make vegetarians look bad.

But then you started saying testing on animals is alright. And you blindly insulted PETA. Why is it that PETA is always such a target? Yes, there are extremists (extremists : animal rights activists :: Hamas : Muslims) in PETA who do things most members shudder at. But as an organization, PETA itself doesn't do crazy things, and most members just want to protect animals' rights!

Do you really think animal testing is alright? When they were doing testing for drugs for HIV in the late 80s, everyone thought animal testing was OK because HIV is so bad. But do you have any idea what they did to the chimpanzees they were testing on?? They were kept in tiny cages, unable to move, and intentionally infected with HIV so that they could see the effects of drugs on them - when in fact, HIV did not affect the chimpanzees in the same way and the research was utterly useless!

Chimpanzees were treated cruelly and most of them died in the process, not because of being infected with HIV, but because of the awful conditions and the fact that people didn't care about them. (Even though their cognitive abilities are impressive compared to our own - did you know that those taught sign language spontaneously use it to talk to each other in conversation, just like humans do?) And then PETA workers tried to expose what was happening in these "animal testing" facilities, and all they get is anger and BS from people who don't understand the issues at all.

Animal testing must stop - there are alternative methods of research that work just as well or better, and don't harm innocent CONSCIOUS beings.

Lionheart_0 · August 24, 2005

:? I have an idea on how to stop it... but alot of people would not be happy... erm stop making the products, therfore there is no need to test...

mad4u689 · August 24, 2005

I have an idea on how to stop it too :D, and guess what - most people would be perfectly happy :D It involves information that can be found at http://www.allforanimals.com/alternatives1.htm

Sophisticated alternatives to the use of animals in consumer product testing are readily available. Most of the large producers of personal care and household products could adopt these methods which are more cost effective, better predictors of human injury, produce far quicker results, and do not involve animal cruelty. Why don't all companies become cruelty-free? The two main reasons are: the fear for human safety and the fear of product liability suits.

If you don't believe me and want DETAILS about such alternatives, visit that site, or do a simple google search for "animal testing alternatives" and see how many results come up.

creepybacon · August 24, 2005

have an idea on how to stop it too Very Happy, and guess what - most people would be perfectly happy Very Happy It involves information that can be found at http://www.allforanimals.com/alternatives1.htm

That site wrote:

Sophisticated alternatives to the use of animals in consumer product testing are readily available. Most of the large producers of personal care and household products could adopt these methods which are more cost effective, better predictors of human injury, produce far quicker results, and do not involve animal cruelty. Why don't all companies become cruelty-free? The two main reasons are: the fear for human safety and the fear of product liability suits.

If you don't believe me and want DETAILS about such alternatives, visit that site, or do a simple google search for "animal testing alternatives" and see how many results come up.

I agree. But not all animals are used for products, some help cure the sick so these methods wouldn't work.

Animal testing must stop - there are alternative methods of research that work just as well or better, and don't harm innocent CONSCIOUS beings.

Please list these alternative methods of testing for cures. NOT for the products but for cures.

Evilperson · August 24, 2005

I have mixed feelings on this. . .

We should only test on animals products that are necessary for human life. Comsetics and other POINTLESS things should not be tested.

I feel they are giving their lives to a great cause.

Mercifull · August 24, 2005

Do you honestly think that there are easier, better and cheaper methods to animal testing? Researchers don't do it for fun you know.

mad4u689 · August 24, 2005

have an idea on how to stop it too Very Happy, and guess what - most people would be perfectly happy Very Happy It involves information that can be found at http://www.allforanimals.com/alternatives1.htm

That site wrote:

Sophisticated alternatives to the use of animals in consumer product testing are readily available. Most of the large producers of personal care and household products could adopt these methods which are more cost effective, better predictors of human injury, produce far quicker results, and do not involve animal cruelty. Why don't all companies become cruelty-free? The two main reasons are: the fear for human safety and the fear of product liability suits.

If you don't believe me and want DETAILS about such alternatives, visit that site, or do a simple google search for "animal testing alternatives" and see how many results come up.

I agree. But not all animals are used for products, some help cure the sick so these methods wouldn't work.

Animal testing must stop - there are alternative methods of research that work just as well or better, and don't harm innocent CONSCIOUS beings.

Please list these alternative methods of testing for cures. NOT for the products but for cures.

With the example I gave in an earlier post about chimpanzees being used to test possible cures for HIV, my daddy was meanwhile working on the AIDS epidemic - as an epidimiologist. That means he used and analyzed statistics to better understand how it was being spread - and thus prevent the disease before it happened.

Here is a BBC link (though the BBC is highly biased in animal rights issues) about animal testing alternatives for medicine: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/animalexperiments/alternatives.shtml

A more thorough list of resources, compiled by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) in the UK, is available at http://vetgate.ac.uk/browse/cabi/4cf176ed69b0c196b47fde2bc89dca93.html.

However, this article (http://www.sumeria.net/health/prism.html) by a physician will probably be of most interest to you. It serves to explain the major misunderstandings about animal testing in medicine today, and how it undermines the research process.

I don't necessarily endorse these websites nor agree with everything they say; hey, I just found them on google :D

thedarklord · August 25, 2005

God i hate those groups the worst has to be peta its so much bull die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die

Godslayer · August 25, 2005

God i hate those groups the worst has to be peta its so much bull die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die

That was finely thought out and convincing.

neocrosby · August 25, 2005

That was finely thought out and convincing.

haha really. it almost persuaded me to go out and kill.

man im glad such an intelligent person such as mad4u689

came to this thread.

i was getting a bashing, thanks for setting them in their place.

as for alternatives to injecting chemicals into unwilling helpless guinea pigs, she thourally sourced very good information against the cruel practices of animal testing. thankyou.

Death_By_Pod · August 25, 2005

Your post started out okay. It makes me sad that people like this make vegetarians look bad.

But then you started saying testing on animals is alright. And you blindly insulted PETA. Why is it that PETA is always such a target? Yes, there are extremists (extremists : animal rights activists :: Hamas : Muslims) in PETA who do things most members shudder at. But as an organization, PETA itself doesn't do crazy things, and most members just want to protect animals' rights!

Do you really think animal testing is alright? When they were doing testing for drugs for HIV in the late 80s, everyone thought animal testing was OK because HIV is so bad. But do you have any idea what they did to the chimpanzees they were testing on?? They were kept in tiny cages, unable to move, and intentionally infected with HIV so that they could see the effects of drugs on them - when in fact, HIV did not affect the chimpanzees in the same way and the research was utterly useless!

Chimpanzees were treated cruelly and most of them died in the process, not because of being infected with HIV, but because of the awful conditions and the fact that people didn't care about them. (Even though their cognitive abilities are impressive compared to our own - did you know that those taught sign language spontaneously use it to talk to each other in conversation, just like humans do?) And then PETA workers tried to expose what was happening in these "animal testing" facilities, and all they get is anger and BS from people who don't understand the issues at all.

Animal testing must stop - there are alternative methods of research that work just as well or better, and don't harm innocent CONSCIOUS beings.

# PETA has stated repeatedly that their goal is "total animal liberation." This means no pets, no meat, no milk, no zoos, no circuses, no fishing, no leather, and no animal testing for lifesaving medicines.

# PETA has given tens of thousands of dollars to convicted arsonists and other violent criminals.

# PETA funds the misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine 3, an animal-rights organization that presents itself as an unbiased source for nutritional information and has links to a violent animal-rights group called SHAC.

# PETA has used their contributorsÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢ tax-exempt donations to fund the North American Earth Liberation front, an FBI-certified ÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Ådomestic terroristÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃâÃ

Mercifull · August 25, 2005

man im glad such an intelligent person such as mad4u689 came to this thread. i was getting a bashing, thanks for setting them in their place.

as for alternatives to injecting chemicals into unwilling helpless guinea pigs, she thourally sourced very good information against the cruel practices of animal testing. thankyou.

Plz dont change the colour of your font. I personally use a green background and i couldnt read it. I did read Mads link and I also read an article that Dusqi sent to me. and while it was very interesting reading it was very very outdated and forcussed a lot on American practives. I can only speak for British laws and testing because I dont know what goes on in other countries.

Cosmetic testing on animals has been banned in the UK since 1998 and for the few years before that hardly any was done anyway. There is also a ban on the LD50 test. Currently only 4% of all animal testing is done safety testing non-medical products such as pesticides. Over a third of all testing is purely study. Meaning that the animals are just bred to study the function of a gene or scanning unborn babies. About 30% of testing is done to find ways to treat and prevent diseases such as the crippling multiple sclerosis, which affects almost 100,000 people alone in the UK, and neural degeneration diseases. The other 30% is on fundamental biological and medical research to find out how some people and animals are immune to certain diseases.

Drug companies are not lazy and if there truely was a cheaper and more efficient way of doing this research without the need for animal testing do you really think they would pass that up? Companies are unethical and capitalists and will save money wherever possible, they cant rule out animal testing yet because there is no better way. I hear a rumor that in America they give tax breaks to companies that do animal testing, now i dont know about that for sure but I do know that in the UK there are NO benefits to animal testing and infact the British government gives tax breaks to those that DONT animal test using the "Three R's" policy. Replacement - use alternative methods, e.g. testing on cell cultures (in vitro). Reduction - use statistics to reduce the number of animals that must be used for each experiment. Refinement - improve the experiment to reduce animal suffering

Humanitarian organisations and governments have funded studies into alternative methods since the 1960s. For the past 15 years, Germany has given ÃÆÃ¢â¬Å¡ÃâÃÂ£4.2 million a year in research grants, while the Netherlands spends ÃÆÃ¢â¬Å¡ÃâÃÂ£1.4 million a year. It is estimated that the total spent by the UK government is in the region of ÃÆÃ¢â¬Å¡ÃâÃÂ£2 million a year. The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods was set up in 1992 by the European Commission, and contributes ÃÆÃ¢â¬Å¡ÃâÃÂ£6.3 million annually. EU regulations state that researchers must assess the pain that an animal may feel during an experiment, and justify its suffering by what the research can achieve.

Maybe in a few years when people have mapped all the human genes we can simulate 90% of research on computers and petri samples and the rest can be done on "human guinnepigs". I dont see these animal rights activists signing up to be tested on maybe they should stop being such hypocrites. Its a fact that animal testing has saved lives and I value human life over animals.

I'm not evil and i'm not pro-animal testing, i'm just intelligent enough to understand that there is currently no viable alternative to eliminate animal testing all together YET. It will happen, and i'm sure it will happen soon but the best way to end it is to put political pressure on the governments of the world, especially America, to grant more money into alternative ways of research. Its the ACTUAL animal testing organisation that are funding ways into alternative research. I'm sure you know of Clive Page, he is a lung specialist trying to rid the world of asthma and did animal testing in the late 90's. He was put on the "death list" by the Animal Rights Militia. Many threats were made on his life however he is also leading the way into alternative types of research.

The anachism of a small minority of people is not helping matters and like I said earlier the closure of the breeding farm in the uk will only mean that the animals come from other countries where there is no legislation protesting them. Animal testing has helped to develop vaccines against diseases like rabies, polio, measles, mumps, rubella and TB. Antibiotics, HIV drugs, insulin and cancer treatments rely on animal tests. Other testing methods aren't advanced enough. Operations on animals helped to develop organ transplant and open-heart surgery techniques.

As much as i'd like to see then end of animal testing no matter how much protesting and anarchism done by people like the ALF and ARM (funded by PETA) its not going to end. Because by ending animal testing many people will die from the lack of research into diesease. You are a vegan and so very bia to anything which could harm animals and I understand your position buit you also need to understand where I'm coming from (a neutral party) telling you that it's just not possible yet. Write to your MP/Senator, write to your PM/President and put pressure on companies in America to end the LD50 test and Cosmetic testing. Also put political pressure on more funding into alternative forms of research because thats the only way its going to end. It will not end until there really is a cheaper and more effient way. Until that day, keep protesting, keep writing letters but dont go stealing people bodies from graves and blowing up labs because it solves nothing. If the IRA can give up terrorism then so can the animal rights groups.

Matt

creepybacon · August 25, 2005

O.0 good replys. If you're going to provid facts for or againts this type of thing (which alot of you are doing..) can you please provide links to? Keeps it interesting then. :P

mad4u689 - Thanks, i don't have time to read those right now but i'll look through them later.

neocrosby · August 25, 2005

# PETA has stated repeatedly that their goal is "total animal liberation." This means no pets,...

They are not saying 'no pets' what they are saying is that people should get pets, but not if they are going to neglect them. To often are animals being left in extreme conditions, being caged all day, leashed up with not attension, abused, and not fed properly. They are not saying Hey everyone let your beloved animals go into the wilderness, because we can't treat them like slaves.

Its so sad, that in todays world there are idiots breeding animals for cash, when there are so many animals overpopulating shelters and pounds all across the world, and these people are only producing more, The animals in the shelters are just as capable of giving love and affection that a 'pure bred' animal could give. Its horrible.

# PETA regularly targets kids as early as elementary school with anti-meat and anti-milk propaganda.

Wait a minute here! And the Meat and Dairy industries DONT!? That is exactly what they do, just on a much more enourmous scale! Go out what do you see, Hamburgers on billboards, McDonalds luring kids in with their playgrounds and toys everywhere, and the ever so popular celebrity endorsed "got milk?" adds on television.

If Peta is so guilty for putting out the message that there are more healthier and compassionate alternatives to Meat and Dairy, then The Meat and Dairy industrys are so much more to blame for using propaganda, or feeding information into kids.

Comon man, i don't know about the rest of the people, but im kinda questioning where you are getting your info...

after all this guy is pro- testing on humans that are in a coma... :roll:

YIKES!

I dont see these animal rights activists signing up to be tested on maybe they should stop being such hypocrites.

Actually I personally have. At the Japser Medical Clinic in my area, I am volunteering myself in medical studies, its not only reducing the need for animal testing, but helping medicines get passed through willing humans, rather than unwilling animals, plus i get paid a fat wad also.

The studies i've done so far are one on Heart Rhythems, and another where i've taken medication being tested for Rhumatoid Arthritis.

They were very easy, and I got taken vare of very nicely where I stayed.

plus the wireless internet there is always a plus.

:)

I'm not evil and i'm not pro-animal testing, i'm just intelligent enough to understand that there is currently no viable alternative to eliminate animal testing all together YET.

As much as i'd like to see then end of animal testing no matter how much protesting and anarchism done by people like the ALF and ARM (funded by PETA) its not going to end. Because by ending animal testing many people will die from the lack of research into diesease. You are a vegan and so very bia to anything which could harm animals and I understand your position buit you also need to understand where I'm coming from (a neutral party) telling you that it's just not possible yet. Write to your MP/Senator, write to your PM/President and put pressure on companies in America to end the LD50 test and Cosmetic testing. Also put political pressure on more funding into alternative forms of research because thats the only way its going to end. It will not end until there really is a cheaper and more effient way. Until that day, keep protesting, keep writing letters but dont go stealing people bodies from graves and blowing up labs because it solves nothing. If the IRA can give up terrorism then so can the animal rights groups.

Matt

Im glad that you are so well informed on these issues, rahter than the normal, unknowing, pro-killing type.

I've deffinately put my share of pressure on my local politions in my town, to put awareness in things such as this. Going to city council meetings, they are sick of me and my friends there, but we have had our accomplishments, as we have been shut down a lot, but that comes with the hard fight.

This is my last post here,

im glad we can come to agreements on parts.

thanks,

Casey

Hannibal · August 25, 2005

Okay, first of all, as Mad and lots of others already pointed out, to the original poster:

Individual claiming to support X is not the same as everyone supporting X

('Muslim' terrorists are not the same as muslims,

Murderer of Pim Fortuijn is not the same as every animal rights activist,

Pope is not the same as every Christian,

and the list goes on)

Generalising is bad. Stop it!

Some posts raised a few interesting questions later, I will try to respond to them now :)

One should not eat meat/milk vs. the PETA/any other organization should not try and advise children not to eat meat/milk

Tough one. Meat and milk both have highly healthy components, which especially children need to grow up properly. It's not healthy for them to grow up without them. On the other hand, too much meat is very bad as well, fast food is probably the number one cause of overweight in this world. There is a distinction to be made between advertisements for children to drink milk in general because it's healthy, or not to do so because it's a cause for animals to be mistreated, and the advertisements to go eat at McDonalds or Burger King. The former are ideal-driven advertisements, the latter are profit-driven advertisements. We could have an entire argument whether one is 'better' than the other, but the point here is that we should try to make sure the following happens:

[*:ms0yjzm0]Children get a good upbringing with enough (but not too much) meat/meat-replacements and calcium products.

[*:ms0yjzm0]Animals are treated with respects

I think that both the PETA or whatever it's called and the Dairy/Meat industries will be happy that way. In Holland, there are independant trademarks assigned to food that did not hurt animals, for example, eggs from chickens that were able to walk around freely. The consumer's organisations check these trademarks regularly, to prevent people buying products that were not respecting animal rights if they do not want to. Most supermarkets here now only have products that do respect animal's rights, with regard to milk and eggs. Meat is another story however.

With regards to meat - children should be given food that enables them to grow up normally. Meat does this of itself, but plenty of meat-replacements will do fine too, it's a question of marketing those and making sure the necessary vitamins and minerals are present.

Organisations marketing for children are normal - children will also be more touched by advertisements for Doctors without Borders that show crippled or wounded people. That does not make these kinds of advertisements wrong, and if it does, then this would be a general thing. It doesn't really say anything about the organisation that does this.

People have no choice but to use animal testing

In most cases, this is no longer true, as proved by a multitude of links here.

There are plenty of machines and artificial things (or simply computer programs) to test medicins. Also, in the end medicins will end up being tested on humans anyway. They have to be, you just can't predict everything that happens. As for an animal versus a human life... that's a difficult debate. Personally, I value the life of animals in general less than a human life. However, 'valueing' life is a dangerous business. You could judge by things like intelligence and/or consciousness, but there is also the bit of emotional attachment. Point being, if you drive this point through, you can get crazy situations where people say (for example), that the lives of two family-less 64-year old Math teachers without friends do not weigh up to the life of a beautiful and intelligent 24-year old underwear model with kids and an entire fan-website caring about her. (No, I'm not going to discuss this example, simply pointing out that things aren't always this simple)

In the end, Matt is right. People will have to test medicins, and countries should spend more to try and find alternatives to animal testing.

Re: Death_by_pod

Raising conscious beings for the purpose of testing medicins on them is unethical in my eyes - they have a right to exist, to feel emotion and to be intelligent. One cannot deny them these rights, this would be a violation of the human rights act signed by the UN.

Your argument about intelligence being nurture (ie: taught) or an illusion (ie: nonexistant) is flawed.

For one, there should have been someone who was intelligent first, and taught this to his/her children. This cannot have been the case - who would have taught him/her he/she was intelligent?

It also clashes with people who are mentally handicapped but have mentally healthy children - who taught them that they were intelligent?

Another thing, if we have the illusion that we are intelligent, that implies that there must be someone or something who really is intelligent, and able to make that distinction. I daresay you are not going to tell us you are the all-knowing all-seeing person who does so?

A bit later you claim that people and/or animals are/seem intelligent because they fit our set of rules for being described and/or thought of as Intelligent. The philosophical debate that should follow here is: is that the same or not? You imply it is not, and therefor this is some kind of failure.

I would argue that if someone fits all our so-called criteria for him/her being intelligent, than he/she is so. If you still thought your bird was not intelligent, you must have had a reason to think of it that way, ie a criteria that the bird didn't meet. What about you? Do you think you are only considered intelligent because you meet criteria? What is the difference between someone who truly is intelligent or who fits the criteria? Wouldn't you say that if there is a difference, then our criteria are flawed? And you would have determined that exact flaw if you knew the difference, thus adding another criteria, thus proving that there is no difference between the idea (Plato) 'intelligent' and our word for it?

FWIW, this is the argument countless philosophers, Wittgenstein among them, would use against your argument. I'm curious as to your explanation why the word differs from the idea in this case :).

Next, you argue that a simulation is never as good as the real thing:

I would like to mention that many cosmetic companies do indeed use these alternative measures but alternatives are nothing compared to a whole living system since problems might occur due to multiple system failures (E.g. absorption through the skin and then absorption into the nervous system eventually causing brain damage. It might pass the skin corrosion test but could potentially harm many if released with a full test).

Some pseudocode for you:

Integer Variable user_input = Prompt("Please enter a number");



Display Faculty(user_input);







Function Faculty (number)



// Some code to return the faculty of a number passed into the function.

Now, if the user enters a word ("Apple") in the prompt, this code will fail horribly - you can't calculate the faculty of a number (and the variable type wouldn't fit, but that's a bit hard to explain if you know nothing about programming). In other words, this small program has a bug. It doesn't always work correctly.

Now, a simulation should always work correctly. You argue that it may not, to which my answer would be: make better simulations. If it doesn't work, it's not good enough.

I work in software development projects. I know it's hard, and with big projects even impossible, to make bug-free code, and that some bugs go unnoticed for a long time. This is a live-and-learn situation. You cannot prevent that from happening, not even with animal testing. As research progresses, simulations become more and more accurate, to an extent that they will provide more certainty than animal testing. For this we should research, it's the only thing that will make medicins better than they are now - you cannot improve living beings, but it's quite easy to improve codes or other simulations.

After all you wouldn't want to put something on your face/body if you have no idea what it could do to you.

That's an unfair comparison, you do have an idea what it could do to you - it was developed as a cure, there is a reasonable theoretical explanation as to what it would do. It's not a subject X or something like that... Even if it wasn't thoroughly tested, lots of people would use medicins that may cure them as opposed to resigning to the fact that they will have to live with their illness forever or even die because of it.

It would be good for you to try and view the situation objectively and try not to assign people and animals intrinsic value. I find that intrinsic value is more of an emotional thing and is not always rational. I don't see you trying to stop people from eating animal's since there are infinitely more animals that are killed for food then the ones that are used for useful purposes (such as cures and product safety).

Hum. I don't understand what the last sentence in this paragraph has to do with the former two. Yes, intrinsic value is a somewhat emotional thing. You have to accept that humans have emotion, it is part of us, part of our brain, our thinking, our entire life. You cannot ignore the fact that humans have emotion, that's irrational ;).

Death_By_Pod · August 26, 2005

# PETA has stated repeatedly that their goal is "total animal liberation." This means no pets,...

They are not saying 'no pets' what they are saying is that people should get pets, but not if they are going to neglect them. To often are animals being left in extreme conditions, being caged all day, leashed up with not attension, abused, and not fed properly. They are not saying Hey everyone let your beloved animals go into the wilderness, because we can't treat them like slaves.

Its so sad, that in todays world there are idiots breeding animals for cash, when there are so many animals overpopulating shelters and pounds all across the world, and these people are only producing more, The animals in the shelters are just as capable of giving love and affection that a 'pure bred' animal could give. Its horrible.

# PETA regularly targets kids as early as elementary school with anti-meat and anti-milk propaganda.

Wait a minute here! And the Meat and Dairy industries DONT!? That is exactly what they do, just on a much more enourmous scale! Go out what do you see, Hamburgers on billboards, McDonalds luring kids in with their playgrounds and toys everywhere, and the ever so popular celebrity endorsed "got milk?" adds on television.

If Peta is so guilty for putting out the message that there are more healthier and compassionate alternatives to Meat and Dairy, then The Meat and Dairy industrys are so much more to blame for using propaganda, or feeding information into kids.

Comon man, i don't know about the rest of the people, but im kinda questioning where you are getting your info...

after all this guy is pro- testing on humans that are in a coma... :roll:

YIKES!

Do you really think I'm making this up to be cool or something? :roll:

Here are some quote I got (first google search I done searching for the info).

"In a perfect world, animals would be free to live their lives to the fullest: raising their young, enjoying their native environments, and following their natural instincts. However, domesticated dogs and cats cannot survive "free" in our concrete jungles, so we must take as good care of them as possible. People with the time, money, love, and patience to make a lifetime commitment to an animal can make an enormous difference by adopting from shelters or rescuing animals from a perilous life on the street. But it is also important to stop manufacturing "pets," thereby perpetuating a class of animals forced to rely on humans to survive." PETA pamphlet, Companion Animals: Pets or Prisoners?

"I don't use the word "pet." I think it's speciesist language. I prefer "companion animal." For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship ÃÆÃ¢â¬Å¡ÃâÃÂ enjoyment at a distance." Ingrid Newkirk, PETA vice-president, quoted in The Harper's Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223.

"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation." Ingrid Newkirk, national director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us? Harper's, August 1988, p. 50.

"In a perfect world, all other than human animals would be free of human interference, and dogs and cats would be part of the ecological scheme." PeTA's Statement on Companion Animals.

"You don't have to own squirrels and starlings to get enjoyment from them ... One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV," Ingrid Newkirk, national director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Chicago Daily Herald, March 1, 1990.

... and so on and so on, you can clearly see they don't want you having a pet.

For the targeting of kids.

Date October-November, 2001

The News Story: PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) targets elementary school children with a campaign to persuade them to give up milk. PETA also hands out trading cards citing negative health effects of drinking milk such as obesity, flatulence, acne and excess mucous.

Media Coverage: Numerous TV, radio and newspapers across Ontario.

Our Registered Dietitian's Response

* As a Registered Dietitian, I support Health Canada's recommendation of eating 2 to 4 servings of Milk Products every day as a part of a balanced diet.

* Milk has energy and 15 essential nutrients. It's packs a lot of nutritional power.

* What children drink is important to their health. A recent study in the US shows that drinking milk resulted in children meeting their recommended intakes of vitamin A, folate, B12, calcium and magnesium.(1)

* Children, especially pre-teens and teens, are at a critical point in their bone development. Milk is the gold standard food for building bones. Milk has 6 bone-building nutrients - calcium, vitamin D, vitamin A, protein, magnesium, and phosphorus.

Key Messages For Your Clients

Credible medical and health organizations all support the consumption of milk, including Dietitians of Canada, National Institute of Nutrition, Canadian Pediatric Society and the Canadian Medical Association.

To rebut specific trading cards:

Obesity (Chubby Charlie)

* Individual foods don't make people fat. This is an issue that is affected by other lifestyle factors such as physical activity.

* A recent study in the International Journal of Obesity concluded that children with higher intakes of calcium and milk had lower body fat.(2)

Lactose Intolerance (Windy Wanda)

* There are varying degrees of lactose intolerance. Many lactose-intolerant people can drink small amounts of milk with meals spread throughout the day.(3) Cheese and yogurt, which contain very little lactose, are also good choices.

Acne (Pimply Patty)

* There's no scientific proof linking individual foods to acne.(4)(5) Other factors like genetics, skin type, hormones and pollution play a part in causing acne. Acne can also be made worse by stress, too much heat and touching the face.(6)

Mucous (Lougie Louie)

* Studies have shown that drinking milk does NOT cause mucous production.(7) Higher-fat milk and soy beverages may create the illusion of more mucous in the mouth due to their full-bodied texture.(8)

* Researchers in Australia showed that people who believed milk causes mucous were more likely to report these symptoms. These people were given two drinks - one soy-based, the other milk-based - with similar flavour and texture. Participants reported similar symptoms regardless of the drinks.(9)

From: http://www.nutritionthatworks.org/hp/nutrition/news_nutr-archive.html and here is a news article about it http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/1076

It is one thing to promote healthy eating but it is another to completely lie and give children the idea that the reason they are fat, have acne etc. is because of dairy products.

Foods that are advertised (eg. Mc DonaldÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢s) are free to say what they like much in the same way as veggie-burgers are allowed to be advertised. They are however not allowed to lie about their products which from the above you can clearly see they do.

Before you call me a liar again please take the time to actually google the ÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅfactsÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃâÃ

Death_By_Pod · August 26, 2005

My aim here is not to persuade you because this is all opinion after all but I will try and explain my ideas in a little better detail then my always cryptic and lazily written posts.

Raising conscious beings for the purpose of testing medicins on them is unethical in my eyes - they have a right to exist, to feel emotion and to be intelligent. One cannot deny them these rights, this would be a violation of the human rights act signed by the UN.

Notice how you said unethical in your eyes; almost everyone a few hundred years ago (even the U.N., if it existed that is) would have thought it would be unethical to give women, black and gays equal rights but you only need to go back to our parents/grandparents before you start to see this discrimination. People once thought it would be wrong to ÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬Ãâ¹ÃâmixÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢ with the ÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬Ãâ¹ÃâinferiorÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢ races maybe in the future we will come down another step from our ladder of self-righteousness and allow ourselves to be experimented upon. After all what puts up above animals, they too are just creatures wondering the earth like us.

I canÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢t see this happening anytime soon but with the advances of genetic technology and the downfall of religious extremism found in places such as America, maybe we could come to an agreement that not all people have the right to a life. After all, the only thing you need to do is not have a child in order to deny someone the right to a life. Would it be such a stretch to say that keeping someone locked up and unaware of the environment around them would be similar to letting your genetic information go to waste by not having children? After all the outcomes for both would be similar, the child would not exist in the conventional sense.

Your argument about intelligence being nurture (ie: taught) or an illusion (ie: nonexistant) is flawed.

For one, there should have been someone who was intelligent first, and taught this to his/her children. This cannot have been the case - who would have taught him/her he/she was intelligent?

It also clashes with people who are mentally handicapped but have mentally healthy children - who taught them that they were intelligent?

Another thing, if we have the illusion that we are intelligent, that implies that there must be someone or something who really is intelligent, and able to make that distinction. I daresay you are not going to tell us you are the all-knowing all-seeing person who does so?

A bit later you claim that people and/or animals are/seem intelligent because they fit our set of rules for being described and/or thought of as Intelligent. The philosophical debate that should follow here is: is that the same or not? You imply it is not, and therefor this is some kind of failure.

I would argue that if someone fits all our so-called criteria for him/her being intelligent, than he/she is so. If you still thought your bird was not intelligent, you must have had a reason to think of it that way, ie a criteria that the bird didn't meet. What about you? Do you think you are only considered intelligent because you meet criteria? What is the difference between someone who truly is intelligent or who fits the criteria? Wouldn't you say that if there is a difference, then our criteria are flawed? And you would have determined that exact flaw if you knew the difference, thus adding another criteria, thus proving that there is no difference between the idea (Plato) 'intelligent' and our word for it?

FWIW, this is the argument countless philosophers, Wittgenstein among them, would use against your argument. I'm curious as to your explanation why the word differs from the idea in this case

You start off by learning intelligence from the environment around you, so the ÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬Ãâ¹ÃâfirstÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢ person would learn from the environment and other people. Prehistoric man relied just as much on instinct then knowledge, it has always been conveyed to us in history classes that they discovered things by accident (such as cooking and tool making) after which they would pass down to the next person. If you remove someone from the environment and their parents then they have no to chance to learn anything (at most they will learn that food appears at certain times). You tell me, born and lived in a white padded cell what would you know, what would your behaviour be like and what events will drive your emotions?

http://www.feralchildren.com/en/children.php?tp=0

Here is a list of children raised by animals and in all cases it describes the child taking on animal characteristics, the most extreme condition would be the Gazelle boy who could run 52-54 km/h. If a person was raised by a white padded cell the most logical conclusion would be they would take on no characteristics of humans/animals they would only have the instinct that everyone is born with. Now considering that we know that animals can think and convey emotions like ourselves wouldnÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢t it be at least fair to place this isolated child at the same level as animals since the main difference between them and us is what we teach our children?

In response to the illusion of intelligence well just think about all the information we know and all the stuff out there that we still donÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢t know. We may have a decent understanding of things on the surface but when we get to the fine detail a lot of information is left blank. WhatÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢s more (it appears that) all the intelligence in the world can not save ourselves from the fate of the universe. We are tied to this universe and we are powerless to change the way it works (the laws), we canÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢t just quit the universe and do something else. The laws of the universe seemed to have existed since creation so it begs the question what is the system that creates the rules and the universes, things we may never know.

If the universe died would our intelligence be recognisable? Would it still stand against the universe and everything outside of it? To simply put there are few things we do know 100%. As they say death and taxes but I wouldnÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢t even be too sure of those things existing in the distant future. There is something that is truly intelligent be it a set of equations or a god or whatever but it exists outside our universe and therefore outside our reality.

Animals do have relative intelligence (and yes you could say it is the same intelligence) but do fall short by our standards. For example, my bird could whistle and dance about to mean things like wanting to come out and play but it could never learn and understand the English language to hold a real conversation. Like I said before our intelligence pales in comparison to what we should call intelligence. If you represented our intelligence by a balloon and an animalÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢s intelligence by a golf ball and walked you walked few thousand light years away, they would both look like tiny dotÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢s that itÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢s practically useless to try and determine which one is bigger because they look exactly the same.

What if my criteria for intelligence was, having (as a collective) a complete understanding of the universe and all possible understanding to anything outside it, I would not say it is a flawed definition since it is the limit of everything we could know. As a matter of fact none of us are truly intelligent by the criteria yet it does not mean we still canÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢t make the criteria since we will know that we will know everything when the ability to research further is completely exhausted (i.e. data collected on everything in the universe to a perfect resolution and a 100% accurate model to describe it).

Now, if the user enters a word ("Apple") in the prompt, this code will fail horribly - you can't calculate the faculty of a number (and the variable type wouldn't fit, but that's a bit hard to explain if you know nothing about programming). In other words, this small program has a bug. It doesn't always work correctly.

Now, a simulation should always work correctly. You argue that it may not, to which my answer would be: make better simulations. If it doesn't work, it's not good enough.

I work in software development projects. I know it's hard, and with big projects even impossible, to make bug-free code, and that some bugs go unnoticed for a long time. This is a live-and-learn situation. You cannot prevent that from happening, not even with animal testing. As research progresses, simulations become more and more accurate, to an extent that they will provide more certainty than animal testing. For this we should research, it's the only thing that will make medicins better than they are now - you cannot improve living beings, but it's quite easy to improve codes or other simulations. (I can understand simple code since I study computational science [using programming to solve scientific problems])

That is the problem with computer simulation is either too perfect (It canÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢t account for the uncertainty that is inherent in nature) or that it is programmed with an ÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬Ãâ¹ÃâequationÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢ that is indeed inaccurate itself. It is currently technically impossible to code some sort of chaos into the computer system and we are forced to use pseudo random number generators by using a set of equations and seeds, it may be impossible to decipher the original seed but the point remains that randomness on the computer is a set of instructions which does not mimic the nature of reality. The equations we have might work for nice simple things for example NASA can use Newtonian mechanics to land a shuttle on Mars pretty accurately but the equations itself are horribly wrong.

A computer simulation can not simulate the condition that over time an animal will form a reaction to a foreign chemical since all it can do is a lookup of all the know combinations of chemicals and determine that the chemical is indeed safe. But all animals are dynamic and things in the future may spark some sort of problem which is overlooked by the program. To be honest I have never heard of a program that is able to simulate something as dynamic as nature (otherwise it would have been adopted by everyone). Why would people continue animal testing if there were a better, cheaper and more reliable alternative available? This is what it boils down to as there would be no logical reason for animal testing to continue or even be let alone be legal.

That's an unfair comparison, you do have an idea what it could do to you - it was developed as a cure, there is a reasonable theoretical explanation as to what it would do. It's not a subject X or something like that... Even if it wasn't thoroughly tested, lots of people would use medicins that may cure them as opposed to resigning to the fact that they will have to live with their illness forever or even die because of it.

Ok what happens if someone discovers a new pigment of colour which blows everyone else out of the water (there was a time when you were restricted to certain colours for things like cloth dyes), you would have no idea if it caused a reaction or even worse caused a permanent injury since it is new and experiments have not been done on the chemical. Do you just release the product and hope for the best or do you test it on subjects for a reasonable period of time to be certain of its safety?

Hum. I don't understand what the last sentence in this paragraph has to do with the former two. Yes, intrinsic value is a somewhat emotional thing. You have to accept that humans have emotion, it is part of us, part of our brain, our thinking, our entire life. You cannot ignore the fact that humans have emotion, that's irrational

Yes but the point is we shouldnÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢t force ideaÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢s on others if you know your opinion is a bias one. For example I donÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢t care if it is found animal testing is good or bad since I have nothing to lose emotionally from it. However if it is someoneÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢s job to test on animals or your one true passion to go out and save injured animals you canÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢t expect that your opinion is going to be the absolute truth or even remotely close to it.

Objectivity generally gives you better clarity on the issue (the reason why we have sport umpires from a neutral country or you send your complaint to a court) and you should at least try to reason with the opposition before making any judgement. I have written essays about issues from the point of view of the opposition and gave conclusions in favour of the opposition (even though I remain completely unconvinced by their arguments). I feel it helps you understand why you choose your opinion and why they choose theirs and makes you research and critically examine the flaws in your arguments which you might completely overlook if your are passionate about the subject. You canÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢t completely remove emotion but you can take steps to reduce its bias.

(By the way that paragraph was addressed to the person who I quoted and was more about some simple advice rather then a single point)

kaibani · August 27, 2005

Well...this is a little off topic, but it's still in my head so I'll say it anyways. We had a little problem with moles in our backyard for a while, so my dad decided to buy traps to catch them. Now, these traps were had a little square that if a mole hits it away, the 2 metal pieces will snap together and crush the mole. We had just put the traps in yesterday, and this morning we caught one...only it wasn't a very beautiful sight. More like saddening to see the mole crushed by two metal poles right in half, yet still in one piece. My dad took it off and we put it in a box. Surprisingly, it was still striving to live after 15 minutes. I wondered to myself, would it have been better off dead than being slowly killed like this? We put the mole back to a forest away from our house. I didn't much hopes for that mole. :(

paul_wilson · August 28, 2005

umm to what Death_by_pod said about what makes us better than animals, i would say that medicin, science, construction and electricity does that pritty well.

now cosmetic testing is a loadof crap that doesnt need to be dont because we all can live without makeup but medical testing is a whole different thing altogether. its SAVES PEOPLES LIVES. Id rather see purposly bred semi-sentinent animals die to better us than test dangerous and possibly deadly substances on human beings. not only that its illeagal to test stuff like that on humans.i dont like seeing animals die but its got to be done if the human race wants to survive.

Now killing animals for food and clothing is fine in my eyes too. No way in hell i would ever go vegetarian. Animals kill other animals for food so i dont see the problem when we kill purposly bred stock to feed the billions of humans on this earth. if we didnt there goes like 40 million jobs.. but anyways, thats my opinion

Scruffy5389 · August 28, 2005

First off:

PETA also hands out trading cards citing negative health effects of drinking milk such as obesity, flatulence, acne and excess mucous.

I agree with death by pod on this one; telling insecure kids that they will get fat and have extra mucous and acne if they drink milk is a little below the belt. They are taking advantages of growing kidsÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢ insecurity. An organization like PETA claims to be moral. Stooping to low standards of advertising such as this makes them hypocritical. PETA tells the kids to stop drinking milk because it makes them ugly, when really PETA wants the kids to stop drinking milk to save animals.

We expect and accept that ordinary advertisers take advantage of our insecurities (ÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åchew gum cuz youÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¾ÃÂ¢ll be coolerÃÆÃÂ¢ÃÂ¢Ã¢â¬Å¡ÃÂ¬ÃâÃ

Ruzbeh · August 28, 2005

All I know is this (and this is my opinion). Animals don't have rights, but as the same time you could argue that humans don't have rights either. Why do humans have rights? So everyone can be happy. Why do animals have rights? So every animal can be happy, which makes human beings happy. If animals had to undergo some serious torture or something to find some sort of cure for humans about some deadly disease, I would question it. If it was absolutely necessary, then go right ahead, survival of the fittest and stuff, humans always have the priority and stuff. But if it's not necessary (and let me tell you, in most cases it's not), then don't do it. A lot companies (or whatever you call them) do research and stuff on animals while it's not necessary, but it probably is a lot easier and cheaper (for example you have products that were made with animal cruelty and stuff but you can have the same without the animal cruelty meaning it was unecessary otherwise the producht without the animal cruelty wouldn't exist). That's wrong, imo. It means that the torture or cruelty or whatever is unecessary and you'ren disrepecting life if you still do it anyway. I just don't like that. But you are respecting life when you torture that creature or whatever if it's absolutely necessary. That may sound weird, but it's true. You're basically going to be greatful for that animal, you will still respect life and that's just good. So animals that die in the wild because a certain lion was hungry is a-ok, imo.

Also, I think there are a lot of crazy animal activists out there but they're just stupid and should be ignored (it's not like they're ever gonna learn anyway).

Extremist Animal rights idio...er..protesters

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Important Information