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 ✨
Options
Is This Right?...
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
What do you think? Should animals be harshly mutated so that humans can have a regular ear?
0
Comments
nah, he would have just got pissed at it, and cut it off
The whole ear thing is disgusting though. Make them go without a bloody ear, it's not a matter of life or death.
Almost as wrong as posting the same topic twice
And surely anyone who thinks this is wrong and is not a vegetarian is a hypocrite.
There is very little need to eat meat, there are plenty of other things that do not require the horrible things that are done to animals in abbatoirs and alughterhouses as well as all the stages before, transportation etc.
Eating a steak surely gives you a lot less happiness than having a normal ear would give to someone who has been disfigured (or whatever the purpose of this is)
Many of you wouldn't think twice about calling in pest control if you found a few mice or rat droppings in your house. :rolleyes:
Totally agree, the photo is a good way of doing that. I was surprised that it has taken this long to appear because it's an old picture.
I wouldn't say that I am a hypocrite at all. There is a huge difference between eating meat and using animal for testing purposes.
I am an omnivore. That simple. Meat forms part of my natural diet - and whilst I agree that abbatoirs use appalling systems, I don't think that it is enough to stop me from eating meat.
This, on the other hand, is totally unnecessary.
I don't know, it keeps me alive and ensure that I maintain a balanced diet. And I would never refer to this as having a "normal" ear...
Don't get me wrong I love my meat as much as the anyone but I realise that there is no NEED to eat it these days. You can survive with out it - much like you can survive without an ear.
Which is as artificial as the ear?
The meat you buy from the supermarket may just aswell be artificial aswell - most people tend to choose to forget that the stake they're eating was once part of a living breathing animal - they tend to forget there was a littile sufferign involved in getting that steak onto their plate.
An artifial ear is better than no ear. I don't think transplants are artificial anyway, whether they're form human doners or animals doners.
I wouldn't dispute that the meat we get from shelves has additives and may have been "factory farmed" - and no I haven't forgotten that more than a little suffering is involved.
Why should that make a difference?
Not sure why you wouldn't say it was artificial, and I agree that it is better than no ear.
But then not dying is potentially better than dying - does that mean that we should use anything for that to happen...?
People are quite happy to eat the reamins of an animal that has most likely sufferred in transport because they don't SEE it. When the suffering is in their face most people have a problem.
You said that this ear was unnecessary - you can live with one ear!
I said eating meat is unnecessary - you can live without meat!
In this case a little suffering from a mouse is going to improve someones quality of life - I don't find anything wrong with that. I don't have a problem with pacemakers, liver translpants from pigs, or any transplant of organs, human or animal.
And why do you assume it was in pain? To the mouse the big ear sticking out of it's back was just a normal part of it's body.
It's better for it to be like that than to have mascara rubbed in its eyes or something, I think as far as animal testing goes, grafting what is essentially just skin and gristle is quite humane.
by the way ...with that bag on yer eed and your mysterious name
...you'll make good in the C.I.D. ...COPPERS IN DISGUISE.
Saying a meat eater is a hypocrite for not supporting animal testing is like saying an anti-foxhunt person is a hypocrite if they eat meat.
I think the argument for those who eat meat but are nati hunting is that the hunt serves no practical purpose whatsoever, meat is still natural for us to eat but if you truly care about animal welfare then surely you would not eat meat as it is practically unecessary....
The problem I think is that being against animal testing, fur etc implies almost no sacrifice or change to routine. Becoming vege does..........
Free range animals are still sometimes tansported in horrendous conditions. People are quite happy to beleive the term 'FreeRange' means NO suffering - this is not the case. Most meat eaters a hypocrital and ignorant - could you honestly say that you would be prepared to kill and then eat an animal? Could you put a bolt in the brain of a cow carve it up and then eat it? ...I dont believe you could, but your quite happy to let someone else do it for you, put the whole thing to the back of your mind, and convince yourself that cow was happy from the moment it was born to the moment it died. :rolleyes:
Every time you get a prescription from the docters you're getting drugs that have almost certainly been tested on animals. Sometimes we use drugs that save our lives, other times they can just help us feel better if we have a common cold.
Moonrat you own at least one cat I know. Do you realise how much suffering cats cause garden birds and animals (especailly mice). You don't NEED to own a cat.
If you (with a clear conscience) can eat meat, take asprin, and own a cat - all of which are unnecessary - then surely somebody is entitled to their unnecessary ear.
lol. The site was laggy and I was impatient.
'Is This Right?... [some people may think that this is horrible but its down to opinion and noone can tell you for a fact that youll think of it is horrible]' Is abit lengthy...
Tbh, I feel that even if I did put something in the title no fewer people would read the post, in fact id go as far as saying more would look at the post, including the people who claim to be horrified.
But for what its worth, Sorry.