"Animals in the wild lead lives of compulsion and necessity within an unforgiving social hierarchy in an environment where the supply of fear is high and the supply of food low and where territory must constantly be defended and parasites forever endured. What is the meaning of freedom in such a context?" -Life of Pi
So I was reading Life of Pi, and this quote -proved to be very thought-provoking.
So anyways, I wnated to know how members here felt about animal rights?
Should they be allowed to be kept in zoos? How about having animals as domesticated pets?
What about animal testing, done in laboratories for the sake of science, or animal testing done in safety testing for to-be-released products? Is there a difference between the two?
Please Discuss
0
Animal Rights
Started by
Kyouma
, Aug 04 2011 05:36 PM
118 replies to this topic
#2
Posted 04 August 2011 - 05:43 PM
Plenty of horrible people in the world for scientific testing.
I don't think painful or terrifying things should be done to animals. I do love to eat them though, so is my opinion really valid?
I don't think painful or terrifying things should be done to animals. I do love to eat them though, so is my opinion really valid?
#3
Posted 04 August 2011 - 05:48 PM
pyke, on 04 August 2011 - 05:43 PM, said:
Plenty of horrible people in the world for scientific testing.
I don't think painful or terrifying things should be done to animals. I do love to eat them though, so is my opinion really valid?
I don't think painful or terrifying things should be done to animals. I do love to eat them though, so is my opinion really valid?
Ohh, that's another point i forgot to include.
Raising animals for food could be considered animal cruelty. Whaddya think?
All that remains of this signature is this sentence.
#4
Posted 04 August 2011 - 06:53 PM
I think animals should only be kept in a zoo if they are looked after properly.
i.e. their enclosure needs to be of adequate size and needs to be similar to their habitat in the wild (temperature, food availability, types of plants etc..)
If the animal is gregarious in nature then they should not be raised alone unless there are valid reasons for its isolation (e.g. geriatrics, old age, medical conditions)
As for animal testing, not sure how it's done in the rest of the world but any experiments that are to involve animals need to be approved by an ethics committee in Australia. A committee usually consists of at least one member of category A (veterinarian), category B (research scientist), category C (animal welfare advocate with no other association with the Zoo) and category D (independent lay person).
I used to to work at a cancer research facility where we bred specific mice, implanted tumors in them and see how they would react to certain drugs. Our committee usually consisted of 2-3 people from each category and for the experiment to be approved, the majority of each group had to approve of our methods and reason.
i.e. their enclosure needs to be of adequate size and needs to be similar to their habitat in the wild (temperature, food availability, types of plants etc..)
If the animal is gregarious in nature then they should not be raised alone unless there are valid reasons for its isolation (e.g. geriatrics, old age, medical conditions)
As for animal testing, not sure how it's done in the rest of the world but any experiments that are to involve animals need to be approved by an ethics committee in Australia. A committee usually consists of at least one member of category A (veterinarian), category B (research scientist), category C (animal welfare advocate with no other association with the Zoo) and category D (independent lay person).
I used to to work at a cancer research facility where we bred specific mice, implanted tumors in them and see how they would react to certain drugs. Our committee usually consisted of 2-3 people from each category and for the experiment to be approved, the majority of each group had to approve of our methods and reason.
Pokemon Spam
Spoiler
#5
Posted 04 August 2011 - 07:44 PM
I like where you're going with this debate 
not the old run of the mill animal rights topic.
The question is hard to answer, because science can't give us a definite answer into the psyche of an animal. What life is better for a cat; A life in the wild fighting for food, territory and plagued by diseases and parasites or a domesticated one where they are unstimulated and bloat with fat. I think though, that when it comes to cats and dogs, because they have been domesticated for thousands of years they are more suited for a domesticated lifestyle. However, I think that wildlife should be kept wild. They were never conditioned to be kept in captivity like cats and dogs were. But then again, it's hard to distinguish what makes an animal, who's minds resemble little of our own, "happy".
I for one am for animal testing, given that it is done purposefully and sparingly. Is there a difference between domesticated environment vs. a scientific one? I think that depends largely again on the animal. For animals that were conditioned for domesticated life, for obedience and affection towards their owners, I would say the difference is quite large. However, I don't think a field mouse could see much difference between having their glass containers in a bedroom or a laboratory.
not the old run of the mill animal rights topic.The question is hard to answer, because science can't give us a definite answer into the psyche of an animal. What life is better for a cat; A life in the wild fighting for food, territory and plagued by diseases and parasites or a domesticated one where they are unstimulated and bloat with fat. I think though, that when it comes to cats and dogs, because they have been domesticated for thousands of years they are more suited for a domesticated lifestyle. However, I think that wildlife should be kept wild. They were never conditioned to be kept in captivity like cats and dogs were. But then again, it's hard to distinguish what makes an animal, who's minds resemble little of our own, "happy".
I for one am for animal testing, given that it is done purposefully and sparingly. Is there a difference between domesticated environment vs. a scientific one? I think that depends largely again on the animal. For animals that were conditioned for domesticated life, for obedience and affection towards their owners, I would say the difference is quite large. However, I don't think a field mouse could see much difference between having their glass containers in a bedroom or a laboratory.
Edited by MsRose, 04 August 2011 - 07:47 PM.
#6
Posted 04 August 2011 - 08:12 PM
i think as long as we eat meat, we probably have no say in animal rights.
#7
Posted 04 August 2011 - 08:27 PM
Man Life of Pi, one of my favorite books <3
I think if they aren't being abused and have proper housing and environment it's o.k. for them to be in zoos.
I think if they aren't being abused and have proper housing and environment it's o.k. for them to be in zoos.
#8
Posted 04 August 2011 - 09:29 PM
I mean i dont mind animals being tested on because they can justify it. im disgusted by the peopole who attack animals for the "fun" of it. they have no heart or conscience
#9
Posted 04 August 2011 - 10:11 PM
Is their such a self-implored social science such as animal rights, or is it a cleverly defined social construct because they're cute and cuddly?
(cept jellyfish, they're fucking weird)
(cept jellyfish, they're fucking weird)
#10
Posted 04 August 2011 - 10:55 PM
There are several things I want to say...
First of all, zoos are double edged swords. On one hand, most zoos do not adequately accommodate animals and on principle alone, it is degrading wildlife into objects worth gawking at. On the other hand, it lets people appreciate animals and wildlife in general because you get to experience the wonder in person. It's hard to say whether I'm for or against zoos, since.... people can pretty much almost get the same experience from watching those animal documentaries.
Second of all, I don't quite understand what the quote is getting at. Because animals are, on a daily basis, always living in constant fear and a struggle to survive, that there is no freedom in that? Is that supposed to be in comparison to humans who, in developed countries anyway, generally never have to worry about food or shelter? To be honest, I think animals are infinitely more free than humans. Humans are slaves to their own delusions. Animals live their life through instinct and their senses, while most humans (again in developed countries) live by imagination alone. I mean, just look at us on the internet. We think we can substitute fulfillment through gaining success on a gaming website such as neopets. Freedom is completely relative.
As for animal testing, I can understand why it is necessary. We can't experiment on humans, so in order to further science, we have to experiment on animals. Though I think this is hypocrisy. If we really wanted to save lives, we should do testing on humans and not animals. Because of our sense of moral obligation, we can trick ourselves into thinking that it's okay to experiment on animals instead. Newsflash, humanity's half-assed guilt isn't helping anyone. Countless animals have to suffer for these experiments while we take baby steps in science. If we just experimented on humans, we would A)save more people and B)have less senseless animal cruelty. Theoretically, this is the best option, but like I said, humans are too wrapped up in their own sense of morals that it would never happen.
As for eating meat yet being a avid supporter of animal rights... once again hypocrisy. At least, in America, most of our meat is produced in a factory where animals get tortured daily. Even so called "organic" farms are not exactly cruelty-free. So really, unless you personally check the place your meat is coming from yourself, that chicken you were eating probably suffered a great deal before it died. However, we're too lazy for all that, it's much easier to debate about it on the internet and never actually go check for ourselves. Most people don't even care to check if their food had been tortured (a simple google search for example), let alone actually do anything to prevent it.
Anyway, this post is already tl;dr, which just further proves that people can talk all they like about animal cruelty, but no one actually gives a crap in the first place, not even to read a long post about it.
First of all, zoos are double edged swords. On one hand, most zoos do not adequately accommodate animals and on principle alone, it is degrading wildlife into objects worth gawking at. On the other hand, it lets people appreciate animals and wildlife in general because you get to experience the wonder in person. It's hard to say whether I'm for or against zoos, since.... people can pretty much almost get the same experience from watching those animal documentaries.
Second of all, I don't quite understand what the quote is getting at. Because animals are, on a daily basis, always living in constant fear and a struggle to survive, that there is no freedom in that? Is that supposed to be in comparison to humans who, in developed countries anyway, generally never have to worry about food or shelter? To be honest, I think animals are infinitely more free than humans. Humans are slaves to their own delusions. Animals live their life through instinct and their senses, while most humans (again in developed countries) live by imagination alone. I mean, just look at us on the internet. We think we can substitute fulfillment through gaining success on a gaming website such as neopets. Freedom is completely relative.
As for animal testing, I can understand why it is necessary. We can't experiment on humans, so in order to further science, we have to experiment on animals. Though I think this is hypocrisy. If we really wanted to save lives, we should do testing on humans and not animals. Because of our sense of moral obligation, we can trick ourselves into thinking that it's okay to experiment on animals instead. Newsflash, humanity's half-assed guilt isn't helping anyone. Countless animals have to suffer for these experiments while we take baby steps in science. If we just experimented on humans, we would A)save more people and B)have less senseless animal cruelty. Theoretically, this is the best option, but like I said, humans are too wrapped up in their own sense of morals that it would never happen.
As for eating meat yet being a avid supporter of animal rights... once again hypocrisy. At least, in America, most of our meat is produced in a factory where animals get tortured daily. Even so called "organic" farms are not exactly cruelty-free. So really, unless you personally check the place your meat is coming from yourself, that chicken you were eating probably suffered a great deal before it died. However, we're too lazy for all that, it's much easier to debate about it on the internet and never actually go check for ourselves. Most people don't even care to check if their food had been tortured (a simple google search for example), let alone actually do anything to prevent it.
Anyway, this post is already tl;dr, which just further proves that people can talk all they like about animal cruelty, but no one actually gives a crap in the first place, not even to read a long post about it.
#11
Posted 05 August 2011 - 07:15 AM
Kyouma, on 04 August 2011 - 05:48 PM, said:
Ohh, that's another point i forgot to include.
Raising animals for food could be considered animal cruelty. Whaddya think?
Raising animals for food could be considered animal cruelty. Whaddya think?
Do you mean the conditions animals are in when they are being raised? Or do you mean the act of slaughtering animals to eat them?
For the latter question, I don't think eating animals is cruel because it happens in nature, and is just how life is.
For the former question, it depends on the conditions. Some industrial farms are pretty bad, and the conditions the animals grow up in are pretty cruel. I don't remember exactly how they were treated, but it was pretty bad. Watch Food Inc. if you want to know about it.
"I'M SIGNIFICANT...screamed the dust speck." - Calvin
#12
Posted 07 August 2011 - 04:50 PM
I'm vegetarian. I think we should'nt raise and eat them because it's cruel and very bad for environment.
#13
Posted 07 August 2011 - 05:03 PM
Animals don't have rights. They don't even consider such things amongst themselves.
1) For example Cats "play" with their food all the time before they kill them, that falls under everything animal cruelty.
2) Animals eat each other all the time, that falls under all issues concerning "things people do to be able to eat meat".
3) the only thing animals don't do is scientific experimentation
So 2 out of 3 things, we do what animals already do to themselves, the third is only a byproduct of being smart enough to utilize science. It is perfectly acceptable considering that we are technically animals as well, and therefore we have the "right" to kill and torment other animals, which is the same "right" that animals have held since the beginning of whenever animals appeared on earth.
1) For example Cats "play" with their food all the time before they kill them, that falls under everything animal cruelty.
2) Animals eat each other all the time, that falls under all issues concerning "things people do to be able to eat meat".
3) the only thing animals don't do is scientific experimentation
So 2 out of 3 things, we do what animals already do to themselves, the third is only a byproduct of being smart enough to utilize science. It is perfectly acceptable considering that we are technically animals as well, and therefore we have the "right" to kill and torment other animals, which is the same "right" that animals have held since the beginning of whenever animals appeared on earth.
#14
Posted 07 August 2011 - 05:19 PM
Drelvon, on 04 August 2011 - 08:27 PM, said:
Man Life of Pi, one of my favorite books <3
I think if they aren't being abused and have proper housing and environment it's o.k. for them to be in zoos.
I think if they aren't being abused and have proper housing and environment it's o.k. for them to be in zoos.
I agree, a zoo is like living in a hotel all inclusive for free
And I also loved Life of Pi 
frostz, on 07 August 2011 - 05:03 PM, said:
Animals don't have rights. They don't even consider such things amongst themselves.
1) For example Cats "play" with their food all the time before they kill them, that falls under everything animal cruelty.
2) Animals eat each other all the time, that falls under all issues concerning "things people do to be able to eat meat".
3) the only thing animals don't do is scientific experimentation
So 2 out of 3 things, we do what animals already do to themselves, the third is only a byproduct of being smart enough to utilize science. It is perfectly acceptable considering that we are technically animals as well, and therefore we have the "right" to kill and torment other animals, which is the same "right" that animals have held since the beginning of whenever animals appeared on earth.
1) For example Cats "play" with their food all the time before they kill them, that falls under everything animal cruelty.
2) Animals eat each other all the time, that falls under all issues concerning "things people do to be able to eat meat".
3) the only thing animals don't do is scientific experimentation
So 2 out of 3 things, we do what animals already do to themselves, the third is only a byproduct of being smart enough to utilize science. It is perfectly acceptable considering that we are technically animals as well, and therefore we have the "right" to kill and torment other animals, which is the same "right" that animals have held since the beginning of whenever animals appeared on earth.
I've never seen it from that point of view, but even knowing that I don't feel comfortable using a shampoo that has been tested on rabbits, I still think that we are different from the rest of the animals since we can reason, therefore we can choose to avoid harm to animals as much as we can. The cat of your example is not gonna suffer pangs of conscience for playing with their food, but someone that stabs a bull with swords is completely aware of what are they doing. That's my opinion.
#15
Posted 07 August 2011 - 11:06 PM
frostz, on 07 August 2011 - 05:03 PM, said:
Animals don't have rights. They don't even consider such things amongst themselves.
1) For example Cats "play" with their food all the time before they kill them, that falls under everything animal cruelty.
2) Animals eat each other all the time, that falls under all issues concerning "things people do to be able to eat meat".
3) the only thing animals don't do is scientific experimentation
So 2 out of 3 things, we do what animals already do to themselves, the third is only a byproduct of being smart enough to utilize science. It is perfectly acceptable considering that we are technically animals as well, and therefore we have the "right" to kill and torment other animals, which is the same "right" that animals have held since the beginning of whenever animals appeared on earth.
1) For example Cats "play" with their food all the time before they kill them, that falls under everything animal cruelty.
2) Animals eat each other all the time, that falls under all issues concerning "things people do to be able to eat meat".
3) the only thing animals don't do is scientific experimentation
So 2 out of 3 things, we do what animals already do to themselves, the third is only a byproduct of being smart enough to utilize science. It is perfectly acceptable considering that we are technically animals as well, and therefore we have the "right" to kill and torment other animals, which is the same "right" that animals have held since the beginning of whenever animals appeared on earth.
#16
Posted 08 August 2011 - 01:02 PM
frostz, on 07 August 2011 - 05:03 PM, said:
Animals don't have rights. They don't even consider such things amongst themselves.
1) For example Cats "play" with their food all the time before they kill them, that falls under everything animal cruelty.
2) Animals eat each other all the time, that falls under all issues concerning "things people do to be able to eat meat".
3) the only thing animals don't do is scientific experimentation
So 2 out of 3 things, we do what animals already do to themselves, the third is only a byproduct of being smart enough to utilize science. It is perfectly acceptable considering that we are technically animals as well, and therefore we have the "right" to kill and torment other animals, which is the same "right" that animals have held since the beginning of whenever animals appeared on earth.
1) For example Cats "play" with their food all the time before they kill them, that falls under everything animal cruelty.
2) Animals eat each other all the time, that falls under all issues concerning "things people do to be able to eat meat".
3) the only thing animals don't do is scientific experimentation
So 2 out of 3 things, we do what animals already do to themselves, the third is only a byproduct of being smart enough to utilize science. It is perfectly acceptable considering that we are technically animals as well, and therefore we have the "right" to kill and torment other animals, which is the same "right" that animals have held since the beginning of whenever animals appeared on earth.
Well, I totally agree with this, but some assholes I know (or rather vegetarians/vegans friends of mine) bitch about how just because animals lack the complexity to understand suffering and pain in others doesn't mean we should cause 'pain and suffering' to animals and be 'animals'.
#17
Posted 09 August 2011 - 05:22 AM
Volition, on 08 August 2011 - 01:02 PM, said:
Well, I totally agree with this, but some assholes I know (or rather vegetarians/vegans friends of mine) bitch about how just because animals lack the complexity to understand suffering and pain in others doesn't mean we should cause 'pain and suffering' to animals and be 'animals'.
cat isn't gonna suddenly turn vegan if it acquired the capacity for complex thought.
Besides lower life forms and organisms on the bottom of the food chain are there to feed those higher up, its the law of nature. Some armchair philosopher isn't gonna change that with "what ifs" concerning animals gaining the ability to understand suffering, or arguments about a responsibility to deny one's own nature to satisfy some abstract idea about animal empathy.
I have 2 pairs of canine teeth, that means nature says its ok for me to eat all the cute little animals i want.
Edited by frostz, 09 August 2011 - 05:26 AM.
#19
Posted 09 August 2011 - 09:10 AM
Zepar, on 07 August 2011 - 04:50 PM, said:
I'm vegetarian. I think we should'nt raise and eat them because it's cruel and very bad for environment.
#20
Posted 09 August 2011 - 09:18 AM
pyke, on 09 August 2011 - 09:10 AM, said:
Can you cite how farming is very bad for the environment?
Flatulence + the amount of food and water you spend raising the animals for relatively little meat + the large amount of land you need to set aside to raise them (in some famous cases that's involved the clearance of swatches of forest).
#21
Posted 09 August 2011 - 09:56 AM
Waser Lave, on 09 August 2011 - 09:18 AM, said:
Flatulence + the amount of food and water you spend raising the animals for relatively little meat + the large amount of land you need to set aside to raise them (in some famous cases that's involved the clearance of swatches of forest).
Ok I’m going to assume that the first part was a joke.
But seriously now, Me and my family have a ranch, not a huge one, just 20 acres, and we raise all of our own meat, for us and sell the rest for profit.
I would definitely have to disagree with the fact that is not cost efficient to raise cattle.
It is actually profitable if you're being smart about it. We rotate our cattle through the pastures we have, so that one year they fertilize a pasture and the next we can grow fed on it for them for the winter.
Also, not all ranches are inhumane; especially the smaller family owned ones. My wife would kill me if she ever thought that our cattle were being mistreated. She almost sees them as pets until it is time to slaughter them.
Maybe it's just me, but I’d much rather raise my own because i know they will be relatively happy here and I can make a profit AND I know that they won't be pumped full of antibiotics and steroids.
"Even if I say,It'll be alright
Still I hear you say, You want to end your life"
#22
Posted 09 August 2011 - 10:05 AM
Rikku, on 09 August 2011 - 09:56 AM, said:
Ok I’m going to assume that the first part was a joke.
But seriously now, Me and my family have a ranch, not a huge one, just 20 acres, and we raise all of our own meat, for us and sell the rest for profit.
I would definitely have to disagree with the fact that is not cost efficient to raise cattle.
It is actually profitable if you're being smart about it. We rotate our cattle through the pastures we have, so that one year they fertilize a pasture and the next we can grow fed on it for them for the winter.
Also, not all ranches are inhumane; especially the smaller family owned ones. My wife would kill me if she ever thought that our cattle were being mistreated. She almost sees them as pets until it is time to slaughter them.
Maybe it's just me, but I’d much rather raise my own because i know they will be relatively happy here and I can make a profit AND I know that they won't be pumped full of antibiotics and steroids.
But seriously now, Me and my family have a ranch, not a huge one, just 20 acres, and we raise all of our own meat, for us and sell the rest for profit.
I would definitely have to disagree with the fact that is not cost efficient to raise cattle.
It is actually profitable if you're being smart about it. We rotate our cattle through the pastures we have, so that one year they fertilize a pasture and the next we can grow fed on it for them for the winter.
Also, not all ranches are inhumane; especially the smaller family owned ones. My wife would kill me if she ever thought that our cattle were being mistreated. She almost sees them as pets until it is time to slaughter them.
Maybe it's just me, but I’d much rather raise my own because i know they will be relatively happy here and I can make a profit AND I know that they won't be pumped full of antibiotics and steroids.
It wasn't a joke, methane is about 25(?) times worse than carbon dioxide in terms of its effect as a greenhouse gas and cattle produce a hell of a lot of methane.
And I wasn't talking about cost efficiency, I was talking about the fact that the amount of food given over to feed cattle (and other animals) would just as easily be able to feed many more people. I think I recall reading somewhere that it takes about 15 pounds of wheat to produce 1 pound of meat, and that's not to mention the amount of potable water which is spent in the process too.
I don't have a problem with meat personally, but it's important to be able to recognise the impacts which its production can have.
#23
Posted 09 August 2011 - 11:36 AM
I eat animals. I'm okay with eating meat and fish and birds. They're edible, they've been edible for a very long time, they can be made safely edible and easily obtainable by being farmed or raised. I don't agree with eating certain things whose cultivation is inherently cruel to the creature (veal comes to mind, although restricting their movement is being illegalized in a lot of places, that doesn't really mean it's stopping), but I don't consider slaughtering to be inherently cruel--provided the means of killing the animal is as quick and painless as possible. I'm not going to bitch out anybody who eats stuff I won't, but I won't be participating in it.
If you're the type of person who thinks animals don't have rights, then think of it this way: It's your obligation as a human being to avoid deliberately causing pain to things that feel it, otherwise you're basically a complete asshole. We know for a fact that animals feel pain. They can express it, they can develop psychological and neurological disorders from it, and they do their best to avoid experiencing it. I'm certainly not going to say that I don't swat flies or step on spiders, because I do. However, I don't think it's perfectly okay to ignore that I casually kill things that irritate me or frighten me just because I'm capable of it.
Also:
Yep.
If you're the type of person who thinks animals don't have rights, then think of it this way: It's your obligation as a human being to avoid deliberately causing pain to things that feel it, otherwise you're basically a complete asshole. We know for a fact that animals feel pain. They can express it, they can develop psychological and neurological disorders from it, and they do their best to avoid experiencing it. I'm certainly not going to say that I don't swat flies or step on spiders, because I do. However, I don't think it's perfectly okay to ignore that I casually kill things that irritate me or frighten me just because I'm capable of it.
Also:
Sweeney, on 09 August 2011 - 09:01 AM, said:
Huzzah for the naturalistic fallacy all up in this bitch.
Yep.
Edited by cuddlydemon, 09 August 2011 - 11:38 AM.
#24
Posted 09 August 2011 - 02:15 PM
I love meat. Obviously this is completely ignorant but honestly if the animals have such a bad life they need to learn the languages of the humans around them, start comprehending the situations and sorting out the best reactions. If they pull a rise of the planet of the apes style kind of uprising I'm sure people will give a shit then.
Spoiler
Spoiler
Great idea.
- Credit to Cyo
#25
Posted 09 August 2011 - 04:26 PM
Zepar, on 07 August 2011 - 04:50 PM, said:
I'm vegetarian. I think we should'nt raise and eat them because it's cruel and very bad for environment.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
