The ALF... Villians or Heroes

BenTheMan said:
Further, this research cannot be carried out on humans. If, for example, you want to see if a specific brand of mascara will cause blindness, is it ethical to test this product on a human? Even if that human is paid for the job? And even if that human has signed a waiver? "I'm sorry you're blind, but now we know we can't sell this product. Here's $200."
Click to expand...

I'm from the UK, and here it's illegal to test cosmetics on animals (since you brought it up). Of course this doesn't stop us buying cosmetics tested on animals in other countries, but it's an important step in the right direction.
We can all live without mascara, I'd rather the people out to make money from such products test cosmetics on themselves rather than animals (as if).
 
Ben, your opinion that humans have more rights than animals will always enrage those that fight for animal rights, unless you can qualify this in some way. Sure us humans have many rights (depending on where you live in the wolrd) that cannot be given to animals. But we're not talking about the right to a fair trial or freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the fact that I drive a truck that gets bad gas mileage enrages environmentalists, but at the end of the day I don't really care.

As I mentioned in reply to James, I have not attempted to qualify this statement at all. If this pisses some people off, then this is fine. But I have promised to try and construct a defensible argument:)

Discussing the merits of the LD50 test is moot since the debate is not whether or not animal tests provide useful results, we know they do (in some cases).
Click to expand...

Not at all. This is very relevant. People invent new chemicals all the time, and federal law dictates that such toxicology tests be carried out. I'm sure there are similar statues in the UK.

How do you feel about direct action against the fur, leather and other similar industries?
Click to expand...

How do you THINK I feel?:)

BTW, there are many people in Africa concerned with conservation and the protection of animals. Check out the National Geographic if you want more info.
Click to expand...

Yes this is true. The Botswanan government used environmental concerns to kick some indigenous people from their land. The indigenous people claimed they had a right to hunt in the Botswanan National Animal Preserve (I can't remember exact details, but despite being a redneck I listen to BBC World News religously), and the government claimed their hunting methods were destructive.

But there are no ALF chapters in Botswana, I guess.

I can say that I support the ALF but not all it's methods because there are certain acts that I feel do not help the cause (such as threatening violence to individuals). You agree with killing animals for food, does that mean you support factory farming?
This is comparing peas and carrots. ALF is an organization with the explicitly stated mission of achieving their ends through non-violent but still destructive means. If you want to support someone, support world wildlife fund, or some other group dedicated to the legal process.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Before I go tucking my jeans into my boots and wading through the pasture, what, exactly, is your position in this James?
 
Ben, I think you do care what people think and if your actions and opinions enrage them, otherwise why bother with a forum? ;)
You didn't answer the question, do you agree with factory farming?
I do support the WWF, and Greenpeace, PETA, Blue Cross, RSPCA...to name a few.
 
Ben, I think you do care what people think and if your actions and opinions enrage them, otherwise why bother with a forum?
Click to expand...

In some sense, I do enjoy seeing people pissed off at the way I choose to live my life. It is often easy for intelligent liberals to say "Well, if only all those unintelligent rednecks from Texas would be informed..." Well, I am a redneck, and I am from Texas, and I do have well-informed opinions.

But this is beside the point. I have a hard time believing that EVERYBODY cares about this:)

You didn't answer the question, do you agree with factory farming?
Click to expand...

From what perspective? Sustainability? In terms of how they treat animals?

Suppose there were no factory farms. I find it hard to believe that Americans could still afford to buy the foods that they are buying. From a social perspective, I think we need farms which mass produce food items.
 
If I understand the arguments correctly, James, the Principle of Equal Consideration is that anything which feels pain should be granted the same rights as, say, humans. Is this correct?

If this is the case, then you cannot support late term abortions, and past the 28th week of pregnancy (or the 8th week, depending on who you talk to), a fetus must be granted the same rights as you would grant the mother, or a horse, or a mink.

Do you agree?

Reference:
http://discovermagazine.com/2005/dec/fetus-feel-pain
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/h...d3be55f91&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/fetal-pain.shtml
 
BentheMan, I'm not going to go into this in detail.

However, allow me to beat James to the punch on several comments.

So, James. Do you believe in abortion?
Click to expand...

IRRELEVANT. Abortion, and animal rights, are two seperate issues. If you want to discuss abortion with James (or any other animal rights activist), I suggest you start a new thread.

Further, this research cannot be carried out on humans. If, for example, you want to see if a specific brand of mascara will cause blindness, is it ethical to test this product on a human?
Click to expand...

If testing potentially harmful products (both cosmetic and medical) on humans is unethical, then pretty much drug on the market was tested via unethical means. Clinical trials involve thousands of humans.

The point raised by Mountainhare above is that "People will consent, but animals wouldn't". Now, suppose you read in the paper that you would be paid for "medical research", quite handsomly as well. The doctor explains that he has a new chemical, and he needs to find the lethal dose on a human. He will take 100 humans, and feed them the same amount of chemical, and then, based on how many died, he would have the result. How many volunteers for this assignment would there be?
Click to expand...

1. So by determining the lethal dose of a chemical in rats, we can make an accurate estimate on the lethal dose one need to give a human? Huh? Quite simply, the only way to be sure of what a 'lethal dose' is in humans is to give an overdose to a human. Since I think we both agree that such a measure is unacceptable, we will just have to be satisified with 'natural death' data, where humans die due to poor use of the drug.

2. Once again, Phase I of clinical trials for a drug involves humans. The aim of Phase I is to determine what dose of the drug is safe to give to patients.
 
IRRELEVANT. Abortion, and animal rights, are two seperate issues. If you want to discuss abortion with James (or any other animal rights activist), I suggest you start a new thread.
Click to expand...

Certainly not! Did you read James' link? The crux of his argument is that if it feels pain, then it has rights. Indeed, if you would spend some time researching his position, then you would find that, if one justifies animal rights in such a way (as PETA surely does: http://www.peta.org/about/WhyAnimalRights.asp), then you must also believe that fetuses past 28 weeks of development deserve the same rights. These are two implications of the principle of equal consideration.

Please try to understand the arguments before dismissing them out of hand.

If testing potentially harmful products (both cosmetic and medical) on humans is unethical, then pretty much drug on the market was tested via unethical means. Clinical trials involve thousands of humans.
Click to expand...

You are misinterpretting the argument. All drugs are eventually tested on humans, only after they are extensively tested on animals. The fact is that many drugs do not even make it to the human tests because they show too many bad side effects in animal trials.

1. So by determining the lethal dose of a chemical in rats, we can make an accurate estimate on the lethal dose one need to give a human? Huh? Quite simply, the only way to be sure of what a 'lethal dose' is in humans is to give an overdose to a human. Since I think we both agree that such a measure is unacceptable, we will just have to be satisified with 'natural death' data, where humans die due to poor use of the drug.
Click to expand...

You miss the point. The toxicology tests serve as a bench mark, because one can have a genetically "clean" sample of rats. This, and rats have a very similar physiology to humans, and they are cheap to mass produce. The rat tests, in a sense, serve as a ruler.

2. Once again, Phase I of clinical trials for a drug involves humans. The aim of Phase I is to determine what dose of the drug is safe to give to patients.
Click to expand...

Once again, only after extensive animal testing.

Moutainhare---James, I'm sure, can speak for himself. If he holds that animals deserve rights because of the Equal Consideration Principle (which I am led to believe because I actually followed the link in his post), then he must also hold that fetuses that have reached a certain developmental stage do as well. If you do not agree with this position, then you should state so now, to avoid further confusions.

Is this going to be an academic discussion, or do we have to get all up in a tizzy about it?
 
I should correct myself. I used the word "toxicology" when I meant "toxicity".
 
BenTheMan said:
From what perspective? Sustainability? In terms of how they treat animals?

Suppose there were no factory farms. I find it hard to believe that Americans could still afford to buy the foods that they are buying. From a social perspective, I think we need farms which mass produce food items.
Click to expand...

In terms of how the animals suffer. It's true that in the end all the animals on both free range farms and factory farms die, but I'm asking you if cheap chicken or pork for greedy humans is worth the millions of animal lives that know nothing but pain and death.
 
Oh well...when you put it that way...

The fact is that most Americans depend on cheap chicken and pork. So feeding people, to me, is more important than animal suffering.

wsionynw---why do animals deserve rights? James' argument is that animals suffer, therefore they deserve rights. This is the default position of animal rights groups. The philosophy is based on this book: http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Libera...3980116?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174833649&sr=8-1, near as I can figure.

I pointed out that fetuses have the capacity to feel pain at 8 weeks, and the ability at 27 weeks. If you agree with this position, then you should also agree that abortion is unethical at 8 weeks or 27 weeks, depending on whose research you believe.
 
Of course, you also must agree with the position that if it doesn't feel pain, then there are no basis for granting it rights. Example: someone in a coma.
 
BenTheMan said:
Oh well...when you put it that way...

The fact is that most Americans depend on cheap chicken and pork. So feeding people, to me, is more important than animal suffering.

wsionynw---why do animals deserve rights? James' argument is that animals suffer, therefore they deserve rights. This is the default position of animal rights groups. The philosophy is based on this book: http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Libera...3980116?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174833649&sr=8-1, near as I can figure.

I pointed out that fetuses have the capacity to feel pain at 8 weeks, and the ability at 27 weeks. If you agree with this position, then you should also agree that abortion is unethical at 8 weeks or 27 weeks, depending on whose research you believe.
Click to expand...

Their biggest problem is that they don't base it on who can feel joy and gain satisfaction from life. It's a whole different world if they do.
 
Their biggest problem is that they don't base it on who can feel joy and gain satisfaction from life. It's a whole different world if they do.
Click to expand...

You know, I agree with almost every other opinion you have.
 
I think this is exactly correct. I guess, though, that "pleasure" is subjective, and "suffering" is more objective. Plus it's not clear that babies can feel pleasure, or that some animals experience more pleasure than other animals.
 
BenTheMan said:
I think this is exactly correct. I guess, though, that "pleasure" is subjective, and "suffering" is more objective. Plus it's not clear that babies can feel pleasure, or that some animals experience more pleasure than other animals.
Click to expand...

It's clear to me, but thank you for showing that you do have some insight into something.

Pleasure and pain in another is usually obvious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top