Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Animal testing

245

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    because torturing a person or animal for sheer pleasure is blatantly out of order and eating meat still serves a purpose (and a tasty purpose)
    Some people eat meat for pleasure, some people torture animals for pleasure. There is no difference because you can be healthy and not eat meat. You are CHOOSING to be a part of the exploitation because "gee isn't beef yummy!".

    So before people start opening cans about 'hypocritical' animal rights protestors, maybe they should look at their own actions, unless they think that animal abuse is perfectly Ok .

    I don't agree with using animals as research, to me it is in every way as disgusting as using people involuntarily, although let's be honest we'd have a higher success rate if we used people and it would probably be far more cost effective. But then it would be wrong... Wouldn't it?

    Just because I disagree with using animals in research, does not mean that if I were hit by a bus, I would not use morphene. The fact is that the harm is done and by keeping myself alive, I could potentially help more beings than if I were dead. It is a utilitarian arguement so to speak. It does not mean that, if you use insuline and you're a campaigner for the BUAV that you're a hypocrite... It means that they are using a drug which in the past was tested on animals to continue to pressure the government to find and utilise more compassionate was for medical research in the future. That is one extra person for the cause. If we were to just let all the "hypocritical" animal rights activists to die of diseases then there would be no progress made for compassionate living.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    Some people eat meat for pleasure, some people torture animals for pleasure. There is no difference because you can be healthy and not eat meat. You are CHOOSING to be a part of the exploitation because "gee isn't beef yummy!".

    Wise up, animal cruelty and eating meat are not comparable in the slightest.
    Namaste wrote: »
    I don't agree with using animals as research, to me it is in every way as disgusting as using people involuntarily, although let's be honest we'd have a higher success rate if we used people and it would probably be far more cost effective. But then it would be wrong... Wouldn't it?

    Again, comparing animals to humans? Balls.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    Wise up, animal cruelty and eating meat are not comparable in the slightest.
    How so?

    You eat meat for pleasure, some people torture animals for pleasure. There's no other way around it unless you can prove that we eat meat as a necessity to survive, which we don't. We it it because it tastes good, ergo it's something we do because it makes us feel good.

    It is also environmentally unsound.
    Again, comparing animals to humans? Balls.
    Again, how so?

    On what grounds can we not compare animals to human beings? On what grounds are human beings not animals?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    How so?

    You eat meat for pleasure, some people torture animals for pleasure. There's no other way around it unless you can prove that we eat meat as a necessity to survive, which we don't. We it it because it tastes good, ergo it's something we do because it makes us feel good.

    It is also environmentally unsound.

    It's a part of our genetic evolution, like having incisors to tear meat up. It also contains essential nutrients, which I know can be found elsewhere but just because we can survive without meat, doesn't mean we should. Torturing animals is not part of our evolution, it's just sociopathical twats who do it.
    Namaste wrote: »
    Again, how so?

    On what grounds can we not compare animals to human beings? On what grounds are human beings not animals?

    Yes, humans are animals in the sense we share common genetic traits with other mammals. We also have a conscience, I see stuff like animal testing as an extension of Darwinian "survival of the fittest" theory. Animals generally don't care for the well being of other animals as long as their own kind are surviving, humans are a part of this too.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    It's a part of our genetic evolution, like having incisors to tear meat up. It also contains essential nutrients, which I know can be found elsewhere but just because we can survive without meat, doesn't mean we should. Torturing animals is not part of our evolution, it's just sociopathical twats who do it.
    Hence why vegetarians statistically live longer?

    Again, if you can knowingly live your life healthy being a vegetarian (which you can) then you are eating for pleasure. If you mutilate a puppy, you are doing it for pleasure. You don't need meat to live. What are these 'essential nutrients' anyway?

    One of many sources just to show it's healthy
    Yes, humans are animals in the sense we share common genetic traits with other mammals. We also have a conscience, I see stuff like animal testing as an extension of Darwinian "survival of the fittest" theory. Animals generally don't care for the well being of other animals as long as their own kind are surviving, humans are a part of this too.
    Ahh I see. Evolution.

    So, let's farm and eat children with learning disabilities because let's face it, survival of the fittest! They're using up resources by keeping them alive which could better be used for more evolved human beings. Also, if they were to reproduce they wouldn't be passing on good strong genes!

    Also, some people are so severely disabled that they cannot develop the same conscience as wider society (claims to) have.

    Why is using animals for medical research to keep people with "weaker genes" alive anything to do with Darwinism? We are promoting the passing on of 'poor genes' and then we would be spending more money on medical research to keep the 'weaker' gene pool alive than on resources for the 'healthy' gene pool. It is hardly survival of the fittest, but counterproductive on 'Darwinist' terms.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    How so?

    You eat meat for pleasure, some people torture animals for pleasure. There's no other way around it unless you can prove that we eat meat as a necessity to survive, which we don't. We it it because it tastes good, ergo it's something we do because it makes us feel good.

    It is also environmentally unsound.

    i eat meat because it's food like vegetables - because it's the best combination to get the nutrients you need to survive - i eat food i prefer to eat though, nothing wrong with that. Theres a big difference between that and torture of any creature

    There's also a difference between torture and animal testing, as torture doesnt serve a purpose, whilst testing avoids unnecessery suffering unlike torture also
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    Hence why vegetarians statistically live longer?

    Again, if you can knowingly live your life healthy being a vegetarian (which you can) then you are eating for pleasure. If you mutilate a puppy, you are doing it for pleasure. You don't need meat to live. What are these 'essential nutrients' anyway?


    Ahh I see. Evolution.

    So, let's farm and eat children with learning disabilities because let's face it, survival of the fittest! They're using up resources by keeping them alive which could better be used for more evolved human beings. Also, if they were to reproduce they wouldn't be passing on good strong genes!

    Also, some people are so severely disabled that they cannot develop the same conscience as wider society (claims to) have.

    Why is using animals for medical research to keep people with "weaker genes" alive anything to do with Darwinism? We are promoting the passing on of 'poor genes' and then we would be spending more money on medical research to keep the 'weaker' gene pool alive than on resources for the 'healthy' gene pool. It is hardly survival of the fittest, but counterproductive on 'Darwinist' terms.

    survival of the fittest isn't really that - it's survival of the luckiest more than anything and im not getting into eugenics asit's abhorrant
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Where can I sign up to the campaign to make Lions veggie then?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i eat meat because it's food like vegetables - because it's the best combination to get the nutrients you need to survive - i eat food i prefer to eat though, nothing wrong with that. Theres a big difference between that and torture of any creature
    But (and I'm feeling like I'm repeating myself over and over), it's food you can do without and which you eat because you consider the pleasure of taste to be above the life of another animal. Just like another person considers mutilating a puppy entertainment, just like some people enjoy child pronography for pleasure. You can attempt to justify it however you want, but at the end of the day you're doing it for pleasure, you are exploiting a living creature and putting it through misery for something which you don't need (as somebody in the UK where alternative are available).

    There is no way in hell to defend that, unless eating meat will not kill you.

    I am not saying that meat eaters are evil, but they are no worse and no better than somebody who gets off on playing badminton with a cat. I don't see how there is any moral difference in that, other than people try to kid themselves that they're not a part of an exploitative pleasure based industry.
    There's also a difference between torture and animal testing, as torture doesnt serve a purpose, whilst testing avoids unnecessery suffering unlike torture also
    No, I was talking about the double standards of a meat eater who is against torturing animals for fun, calling an animal rights activist a hypocrite, sorry if I derailed the thread a bit (that was about meat eating too).

    I am aware that animal research 'aids human survival', but eating meat does not.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    I am aware that animal research 'aids human survival', but eating meat does not.

    Yes it does.

    You just take a moral stance to look for those nutrients elsewhere. That's all it is, morals.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes it does.

    You just take a moral stance to look for those nutrients elsewhere. That's all it is, morals.
    I don't understand your logic, unless it's how I worded things.

    You don't need meat to survive (as a British person surrounded by alternatives), but you do need some medicines.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You have a strange mind Namaste if you think a meat eater is no worse than someone who tortures animals, I'm actually quite offended by that insinuation.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    You have a strange mind Namaste if you think a meat eater is no worse than someone who tortures animals, I'm actually quite offended by that insinuation.

    I have to be honest, I also find it a very strange comparison.. and I am a vegetarian!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    You don't need meat to live.

    No one needed to ruin habitat and kill animals to build a house. They could have spent their life prancing through a forest without having to stop animals breeding and killing their young. However, a house makes a persons life alot more pleasant as did that roast lamb i just ate. mmm
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    You have a strange mind Namaste if you think a meat eater is no worse than someone who tortures animals, I'm actually quite offended by that insinuation.
    Well it's a simple arguement, a very simple one.

    Not my problem if you don't like it. It's your choice whether or not to be offended, but I just see it as a difference in opinion tbh.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How many loafs of wholemeal per mouse mushed up by combine 'arvesters?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    minimi38 wrote: »
    How many loafs of wholemeal per mouse mushed up by combine 'arvesters?
    A lot less in a vegetarian diet, which uses less land than in an omnivorous diet. :p
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    I think to bew fair, if you can't tell the difference between killing an animal humanely and eating it than torturing an animal, you are not thinking correctly. There is a large difference, and as an animal lover this offends me. Whilst you can live without eating meat, I don't want to - I'd rather eat a steak than substitute my diet of vegetables with vitamins.

    I don't honestly see how you can see them as the same. If you don't see humane killing and torture killing, then surley Auschwitz and Painless death, like a man being dosed up on morphine in a Hospital, are much the same to you?

    It's a bit like not differentiating between self defence when someone breaks into your house, and just murdering someone in the street for no reason

    ...Oh wait, our legal system often treats them as the same.:rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    I don't understand your logic, unless it's how I worded things.

    You don't need meat to survive (as a British person surrounded by alternatives), but you do need some medicines.

    i technically dont need vegetables to survive, but i still eat them

    you're just finding a moral excuse to alter your diet, which naturally should be a varied and come from any thing as lnog as u get nutrients
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote: »
    I think to bew fair, if you can't tell the difference between killing an animal humanely and eating it than torturing an animal, you are not thinking correctly. There is a large difference, and as an animal lover this offends me. Whilst you can live without eating meat, I don't want to - I'd rather eat a steak than substitute my diet of vegetables with vitamins.

    I don't honestly see how you can see them as the same. If you don't see humane killing and torture killing, then surley Auschwitz and Painless death, like a man being dosed up on morphine in a Hospital, are much the same to you?

    It's a bit like not differentiating between self defence when someone breaks into your house, and just murdering someone in the street for no reason

    ...Oh wait, our legal system often treats them as the same.:rolleyes:

    there's self defence when you're defending yourself, possesions aren't you though
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    Well it's a simple arguement, a very simple one.

    Well that's exactly it, a simple, stupid argument that makes no sense. :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i technically dont need vegetables to survive, but i still eat them

    you're just finding a moral excuse to alter your diet, which naturally should be a varied and come from any thing as lnog as u get nutrients
    Nope, I don't eat meat for other reasons. There's no need to make this a personal issue. Each to their own opinion.

    I was laying down a moral arguement in defense of activists for animal rights activists (scroll back a page).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote: »
    I think to bew fair, if you can't tell the difference between killing an animal humanely and eating it than torturing an animal, you are not thinking correctly. There is a large difference, and as an animal lover this offends me. Whilst you can live without eating meat, I don't want to - I'd rather eat a steak than substitute my diet of vegetables with vitamins.

    I don't honestly see how you can see them as the same. If you don't see humane killing and torture killing, then surley Auschwitz and Painless death, like a man being dosed up on morphine in a Hospital, are much the same to you?

    It's a bit like not differentiating between self defence when someone breaks into your house, and just murdering someone in the street for no reason

    ...Oh wait, our legal system often treats them as the same.:rolleyes:

    Again, if it offends you then it's your problem. People have differing opinions, that's life. I'm not telling you how to live, I'm saying what I think.

    Please read the arguement as I cannot be bothered going it over and over again. It is about killing for pleasure, which is what eating meat is. An animal is killed for your pleasure. If you want to eat meat then that's your choice entirely, but to myself and many others it is no different to torturing an animal... You have put it through pain and then you're killing it, whether for meat, entertainment, sexual pleasure or clothing.

    What do you mean about Auschwitz and 'humane killing'? You mean the difference between euthanasia and genocide? :confused:

    Murder is murder, but if you put somebody in a concentration camp and dose somebody on morphene and kill them for pleasure, then I'm sure most people agree this is pretty sick. But the meat industry is pretty nasty too.

    But you are not talking about the function of cruelty, you are talking about the difference in how somebody dies. If you were to give hens a lovely life and then kill them at the end of it either for food, or to enjoy watching them run around headless then it's still the same end.

    There's no difference between using a battery hen for food and making it endure suffering than keeping a bird at home in a cage in similar conditions and enjoying its suffering because at the end of the day a life is a life. Both are done for enjoyment of people, however much you try to sugarcoat your lifestyle.

    And no, it isn't in the slightest similar to self-defense.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    Well that's exactly it, a simple, stupid argument that makes no sense. :)
    Well when you can offer an intelligent counter arguement, or at least show understanding of mine then you can call it 'stupid'.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    It is about killing for pleasure, which is what eating meat is.

    No, that's a moral stance and not a fact.

    We are omnivores, we have the genetic make up to be meat eaters as well as veg.

    You choose not to eat meat, but that isn't because you don't have to, it's because you don't like the idea. Fine, that is your choice and no-one here condemns you for exercising that choice.

    But to liken it to torture is a phallacy.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Namaste wrote: »
    You have put it through pain and then you're killing it, whether for meat, entertainment, sexual pleasure or clothing.

    Wrong.

    To die does not necessaraliy encompase pain or suffering in any way whatsoever. It is easy and often done to make creatures and/or people die without suffering.

    When will people finally accept this? To dose up a man on morphine and kill him, he experiences no pain whatsoever. It is a well used method by hospitals world over, and military medics. You die happy and tripping your nuts off.

    Also a bullet through the brain works 99% of the time. No pain, you don't even hear it coming. Just one moment you are alive, the next dead.

    Also, how does killing meat class as a pleasure? Meat contains many natural minerals and vitamins that make me a healthy person from eating it. Some it is so rich in, as to make it the best source of these nutrients. It is simple practicality. The fact it tastes nice makes it an even better food source.

    It is logic. I eat the best source of nutrients I can get - I buy the best magazines I can get - I buy the best car I can get - I watch the best TV that is on.

    Some people choose to diverge from this logic for different reasons - some do not buy the best car, they buy the most economical, or environmentally friendly - like a VW Lupo, or a Toyota Prius. Some avoid certain magazines because of the Publisher doing something they don't like. Some avoid certain TV stations like the BBC because it is state funded, or avoid Sky because Murdoc runs it, the evil bastard.

    This doesn't make people who buy BMW's, or watch the BBC, wrong. It means they choose to do so because they want that particular thing that meets thier needs, in that way. Meat meets my needs (boom boom) by being tasty and nutrient filled. Feel free to avoid it, but don't tell me I am being cruel by eating it. We evolved to be omnivourous because of the nutrients availible in meat being what our bodies need - today we can substitute these with vitamin and mineral capsules, but to be honest, I would rather not do so. I don't think it is cruel to eat meat, and most animals are killed humanely. And, as sickening as it is, the farmer may have beaten or maltreated his cow - but that is not in any way my fault. That is like saying if I buy a kitchen knife off a man, and it is shown later that this knife was used to kill someone, I killed them. This simply is not true, in any way.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, that's a moral stance and not a fact.

    We are omnivores, we have the genetic make up to be meat eaters as well as veg.

    You choose not to eat meat, but that isn't because you don't have to, it's because you don't like the idea. Fine, that is your choice and no-one here condemns you for exercising that choice.

    But to liken it to torture is a phallacy.

    :banghead:

    Unless you've got nowt else to eat, then you're eating it because you enjoy the taste, which is what pleasure is.

    It is about choice and whatever moral path you find is right for you. But we all have the choice to live compassionate lifestyles, even if it means not doing a few things we enjoy where people have been exploited. Meat, dairy, fur, bloodsports... All are a part of people's lifestyles because they enjoy them (obviously unless you're an inuit or something and need fur/meat to survive) and all exploit living creatures.

    If the animal is put through pain or distress then technically it is being tortured. If the outcome of this process is some form of enjoyment for humans (that isn't needed as a means for survival) then whatever the outcome an animal is killed for pleasure imo.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Namaste wrote: »
    :banghead:

    Unless you've got nowt else to eat, then you're eating it because you enjoy the taste, which is what pleasure is.

    It is about choice and whatever moral path you find is right for you. But we all have the choice to live compassionate lifestyles, even if it means not doing a few things we enjoy where people have been exploited. Meat, dairy, fur, bloodsports... All are a part of people's lifestyles because they enjoy them (obviously unless you're an inuit or something and need fur/meat to survive) and all exploit living creatures.

    If the animal is put through pain or distress then technically it is being tortured. If the outcome of this process is some form of enjoyment for humans (that isn't needed as a means for survival) then whatever the outcome an animal is killed for pleasure imo.

    Except most of those living creatures would no longer exist (except in zoos) if they weren't exploited. Why would people keep pigs if not for food? And if you're taking you views to include dairy as well - that's cows on the way to extinction as well.

    Animals are not humans, they don't have either rights or responsibilities. To suggest that they are shows a very warped sense of morality...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote: »
    Also, how does killing meat class as a pleasure? Meat contains many natural minerals and vitamins that make me a healthy person from eating it. Some it is so rich in, as to make it the best source of these nutrients. It is simple practicality. The fact it tastes nice makes it an even better food source.
    But you don't have to eat it. Like you say, it tastes nice.

    Would you go out and buy a product that you know children were trafficked to make, if it had nutrients in?
    This doesn't make people who buy BMW's, or watch the BBC, wrong. It means they choose to do so because they want that particular thing that meets thier needs, in that way.
    I haven't said anybody is wrong. People have said I'm 'wrong' and said my arguement is 'stupid', but I have not said that meat eaters are 'wrong'.
    Meat meets my needs (boom boom) by being tasty and nutrient filled. Feel free to avoid it, but don't tell me I am being cruel by eating it.
    Without sounding rude as that is not my intention... But you do know that you can be healthy by avoiding meat and getting nutrients elsewhere?

    Ergo, it is technically still killing for pleasure if there is an alternative.
    We evolved to be omnivourous because of the nutrients availible in meat being what our bodies need - today we can substitute these with vitamin and mineral capsules, but to be honest, I would rather not do so.
    Nah, you really don't need to if you know what you're eating, how to cook and where to get your goodies. Unless of course you are accusing people who choose not to eat meat for being unhealthy (again, we're talking about choice).
    I don't think it is cruel to eat meat, and most animals are killed humanely. And, as sickening as it is, the farmer may have beaten or maltreated his cow - but that is not in any way my fault. That is like saying if I buy a kitchen knife off a man, and it is shown later that this knife was used to kill someone, I killed them. This simply is not true, in any way.
    Interesting point. I don't think the animal welfare standards in the EU are anywhere near high enough (way worse in the states). I think battery hens are disgusting... Imagine doing that to a human. That is cruelty in my opinion.

    This thread has got a bit derailed.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Namaste wrote: »
    Interesting point. I don't think the animal welfare standards in the EU are anywhere near high enough (way worse in the states). I think battery hens are disgusting... Imagine doing that to a human. That is cruelty in my opinion.

    This thread has got a bit derailed.

    I do disagree with Battery farming, but as long as the moneymen rule we won't see an end to it.

    Otherwise, if animals are humanely and painlessly killed, how is it the same as torture?

    And if I choose a car that isn't environmentally friendly, am I polluting for pleasure? So I have my comfort and big engine instead of a small engine? Even if this car better fits my needs?

    And to say you are not accusing people of being wrong, with your argument, are you therefore saying that torture... isn't wrong?
Sign In or Register to comment.