What are your opinions on animals rights?

What do you think [in most general cases]?

  • Total voters
    9
A

aaqucnaona

This sentence is a lie
Valued Senior Member
We, as the dominant species use other species for pets, food, clothing, entertainment, and scientific research. What are your opinions on this?

I will tell you mine.

First, what gives us the right to do these things to these animals? I think the answer is - because we can. We are capable of doing these things, that is why is 'okay' for us to do them - it is not inherently wrong. We can, by the same justification, test and kill lab mice, as a lion can kill a buffallo. But because we are more capable, we must also extend our altruism to as many members of other species as we can - why? Because we are able to. There is no objective or maybe even rational decision why this has to be the case, but out own altruism compels us to extend our kindness and fairness to other species - the same way we can't help taking care of a kitten or a puppy.

My opinions -
So, pets - yes, of course. As long as they are not kept in tight places with little exercise, pets are practically the best life any non-human can have.

Food - Probably not. Why? Because we can do just as well without 'em. Put me with a cat on a small island, I will eat it. But in a restaurant with the best meat in the world, I wont. I personally value life more than a few extra grams of protein - unless my own life is at stake. This is why I am a vegan*, I eat nothing from animalia except milk and derivatives.

Clothing - No. Clothing from animals is almost totally unnecessary - what with all the amazing synthetic fibers we have.

Entertainment - Yes, only if they are treated as good as or better than pets.

Scientific research - Definitely. As a species, our interests would always take precedence over any other species sufficiently removed from our level of achievement. So apes and elephants, dolphins and whales, parrots and crows, octopuses and squids - only if they are treated well and not experimented upon unless there is no alternative. We can, of course, study any species, but even those which we mercilessly experiment on should be extended our altruism - causing them the minimun suffering possible.

*besides, meat production is very wasteful - a large part of the biofeed goes into the animal's metabolism - all those extra pounds of grains and litres of water can be used to solve hunger and starvation is less privileged places. Not to mention it is also quite expensive.
 
Last edited:
Last edited by a moderator:
Go to a slaughter house the next time you buy meat.

Seriously though - have you been to slaughter houses - especially for pigs and veal?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
aaqucnaona said:
Go to a slaughter house the next time you buy meat.

Seriously though - have you been to slaughter houses - especially for pigs and veal?
Click to expand...

Yes, i have seen how animals are slaughtered and i have slaughtered seafood. We aren't designed to be vegitarian, vegans have some of the worst health problems.

Anyway onto the general issue
Pets - Yes

Definitly, pets have massive health benifits to us, kids who have cats and dogs for instance have asthma and allergy rates equivilant to those of contry kids which is far far lower than that of city kids without pets. Further more the mental health benifts are HUGE. This doesnt even look at the specilised uses like guide dogs

Food - Yes

We are ment to eat an omnivorous diet, that is what our bodies developed for. Furthermore if we didnt raise animals for food they would most likly be extint. The ethics comes in as to how they are raised and slaughtered and how the animal is used after its death. Free range, fast kill and use as much as possible so that the least amount need to die is the most ethical way to live and this is where clothing comes in. Killing animals only for there fur is unethical, killing them and using every part including the skin for clothing IS ethical.

Clothing and materials yes and no (see above)

Entertainment - Yes and no

This depends on what you concider to be entertainment, horse riding, playing with your dog etc of course thats ethical, its no different from the answer to pets and it helps both you and your pet. Chicken fights, NO NO NO

Scientific research - Yes

Yes its ethical as long as it is handled exactly the way all resurch should be, that its APSOLUTLY nessary, that there is no other way to do the resurch and that it doesnt simply duplicate what is already well known and it is done in the most ethical way possible. This means essential medical resurch yes but cosmetic resurch, no
 
Last edited by a moderator:
aaqucnaona said:
Can you tell me why are the two monkeys like that? What research is that from and why? Sources?

Hunting or hurting animals for sport, recreation or ancient storybooks is [IMO] not acceptable at all.
Click to expand...

Actually hunting for food is quite an ethical way to get food, the animals have the best life possible before there death and as long as you kill the animal quick with minimal suffering and you use as much of the animal as possible for food and essential clothing then yes its ethical.
 
aaqucnaona said:
Can you tell me why are the two monkeys like that? What research is that from and why? Sources?

Hunting or hurting animals for sport, recreation or ancient storybooks is [IMO] not acceptable at all.
Click to expand...

The images were taken in a research lab somewhere that experimented with those critters. Where and when weren't available but it is something that did happen but can't be certain it isn't happening somewhere now.
 
Asguard said:
Actually hunting for food is quite an ethical way to get food, the animals have the best life possible before there death and as long as you kill the animal quick with minimal suffering and you use as much of the animal as possible for food and essential clothing then yes its ethical.
Click to expand...

I meant hunting for sport only - not hunting game for food like deering hunting - a shot and quite death. I meant sport like big cats, bears, elephants,etc.
 
Asguard said:
Yes, i have seen how animals are slaughtered and i have slaughtered seafood. We aren't designed to be vegitarian, vegans have some of the worst health problems.
Click to expand...

For example?

Anyway onto the general issue
Pets - Yes

Definitly, pets have massive health benifits to us, kids who have cats and dogs for instance have asthma and allergy rates equivilant to those of contry kids which is far far lower than that of city kids without pets. Further more the mental health benifts are HUGE. This doesnt even look at the specilised uses like guide dogs
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Food - Yes

We are ment to eat an omnivorous diet, that is what our bodies developed for. Furthermore if we didnt raise animals for food they would most likly be extint. The ethics comes in as to how they are raised and slaughtered and how the animal is used after its death. Free range, fast kill and use as much as possible so that the least amount need to die is the most ethical way to live and this is where clothing comes in. Killing animals only for there fur is unethical, killing them and using every part including the skin for clothing IS ethical.
Click to expand...

Ok, I can concede your point - raise the animals properly on a farm, 12 gauge to the head and use it all - but these mass produced meat is not acceptable at all.

Clothing and materials yes and no (see above)
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Entertainment - Yes and no

This depends on what you concider to be entertainment, horse riding, playing with your dog etc of course thats ethical, its no different from the answer to pets and it helps both you and your pet. Chicken fights, NO NO NO
Click to expand...

Agreed too. Chicken fights, bull sports - no. Zoos, circuses, pets, movies and playing - yes.

Scientific research - Yes

Yes its ethical as long as it is handled exactly the way all resurch should be, that its APSOLUTLY nessary, that there is no other way to do the resurch and that it doesnt simply duplicate what is already well known and it is done in the most ethical way possible. This means essential medical resurch yes but cosmetic resurch, no
Click to expand...

Pure reseach - [observation only] - without a doubt.
Applied research - [medicines/toxins,etc] - Only if necessary and minimum.
Cosmetics - No.
 
aaqucnaona said:
I meant hunting for sport only - not hunting game for food like deering hunting - a shot and quite death. I meant sport like big cats, bears, elephants,etc.
Click to expand...

You didnt state that, I'm a fisherman, yes I catch and release those that are to small or that I cant eat but the aim is to catch food to eat (well except carp which its illegal to release alive, you MUST by law kill them.
 
Asguard said:
You didnt state that, I'm a fisherman, yes I catch and release those that are to small or that I cant eat but the aim is to catch food to eat (well except carp which its illegal to release alive, you MUST by law kill them.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I should have clarified.
 
Much animal research in medicine is unnecessary, redundant, unproductive (I know this from experience.) and it quite often leads to bad results - humans don't function the same way as rats and dogs. A good deal of it can now be replaced by human cell cultivation and computer modelling. Testing of cosmetics and cleaning products on animals is simply wrong: if it's poison or caustic, just don't make it!

For meat eaters, artificial production of safe, clean, cheap but non-sentient flesh is within reach already, but the research is underfunded. And probably opposed by some commercial interests. The feed crops and grazing lands now wasted on cattle could return to vegetable, legume and fruit growing, or forest, thus mitigating global climate change.

Trained dogs are fun to watch; tortured bears, not.

You could maybe add working animals: personal assistance dogs, wood-toting donkeys and riding horses. As long as their treatment is fair and decent, i have no problem with that.
 
Also a lot of food is waste on meat - 1 pound of grains is pretty much 1 pound of bread. But 1 pound of beaf is over 16 pounds of grains - all that can be used to feed the starving.
 
Jeeves said:
A good deal of it can now be replaced by human cell cultivation . . .
Click to expand...
i doubt if you can get a true "random sampling" from cell cultures.
and computer modelling.
Click to expand...
computers are good for exactly that, modelling.
in the case we are discussing, a computer model is practically useless unless someone has found an algorithm to model all of humanity.
Testing of cosmetics and cleaning products on animals is simply wrong: if it's poison or caustic, just don't make it!
Click to expand...
"just don't do it" is being simplistic on your part.
 
leopold said:
what's wrong with that?
there are many "free roaming" pets.
there would be a great deal more if it weren't for city ordinances.

yes?

wrong if the animal is used expressly for this.

and?

yes, the grand daddy of the macabre.
unfortunately i must defend animal research.
Click to expand...

Did you even read the rest of my post?
 
Brief Overview

I consider having pets a relationship. That is, I have a cat, and she has a human. My part of the relationship is to give her food and companionship, help her with grooming, and also clean up her bodily waste. Her part of the relationship is to shed all over the furniture and my clothes, and to whine excessively. It's a match made in heaven.

I eat animals, primarily cows, pigs, and fish. I will note for the record that I find the very notion of veal abhorrent in the modern day. Anecdotally, it was at a Mongolian restaurant that I finally understood the "necessity" of eating immature animals; a nomadic or mobile culture needs to figure out what to do with animals that can't travel the long distances. In that context, slaughtering a lamb makes a certain amount of sense. I don't see that necessity, however, in modern, industrial first-world cultures. There are, of course, plenty of problems with how we breed, raise, and slaughter animals for food consumption, but that has more to do with our capitalistic priorities than anything else.

My jacket, shoes, and wallet are all made of leather. I can certainly compromise on the wallet if it comes right down to it, but living in Seattle, I am accustomed to not carrying an umbrella, so a leather jacket is quite useful. Right now, at five pairs of viable shoes, I own more footwear than I have in a long time. Three of those pairs of shoes are leather.

The question of animals in entertainment is often dominated by sensationalistic photos of bullfighting, and the like. And I have concerns about some rodeo-related activities, like the bit where a bunch of horses run downhill, some of them falling and hurting themselves, in a managed stampede. The question of zoos and entertainment is a complicated one, but societies are making decent progress on that front. However, I can't imagine making a western, or an epic historical romance, without enlisting animals.

And while there are certainly some unscrupulous research practices, the reality is that animal testing has helped achieve tremendous scientific progress. While I might object to certain practices, such as the infamous Mary Kay rabbits, it is problematic to propose that this should preclude, for instance, the research that might bring a solution to Alzheimer's Disease simply because scientists are testing on mice. One of the peculiar behaviors I acquired during my exploration and practice of witchcraft is that one thanks the tree if you must break a branch. And while it is true that I rarely pause to thank the cow that gave me the steak or cheeseburger, or the fish alongside my chips—or, such as it is, the potato that makes those chips—I am not without recognition of and gratitude toward the animals sacrificed in medical testing to further the human endeavor. Modern society certainly degrades the intimacy of our consumption, and I think we would certainly do well to recognize the animals we wear, consume, or otherwise damage and destroy in pursuit of human security in the world. But, in the end, we are humans and they are animals; the animals don't stop to think about the fact of our feelings before consuming us—for the most part, they can't. But it would serve our basic psychological, human condition well to recognize the toll our human endeavor demands of the world around us.

Lastly, I would also note the broad range of animals who suffer for human activity even if we aren't eating them, tailoring our jackets from their flesh, or exploiting for medical research. Human pollution of the natural environment is such as to threaten many species' survival. What we have done to the ground, air, and water that results in the degradation of fish, amphibians, and many other organisms is problematic to say the least. There are no easy solutions, but I expect better progress will be made through rational consideration than ignorance or emotion. To quote Pulp Fiction, sure, "Bacon tastes good. Pork chops taste good." True enough, but that sort of outlook isn't exactly helpful.

In the long run, public awareness has tremendous impact. It was reported, a few years ago, that in the weeks immediately following a televised demonstration of certain battery farming techniques for chicken production, British demand for organic and free-range poultry surged. That is, people still like their poultry, but many decided that the lower cost of battery chicken just wasn't worth it.

I think the same thing can happen in any consideration of animal rights. Over the years, it has become unacceptable to harm animals in the production of movies and television shows. The 1990s saw increased public consciousness regarding cosmetic testing on animals; many products now include disclaimers that producers did not use animals for safety testing.

And remember: Laika died horribly, but she helped make possible the human endeavor's next journeys into the cosmic frontier. We thank her, and should never, so long as humanity remains in the Universe, forget what she did for us. Man's best friend, indeed, and truly a "good dog".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top