New CP, new person - same old arguments!
-
That's so ironic for a hopeless drug addict to advocate human experimentation. That is like an insect advocating the use of bug spray. :laugh:
Demon Possessed wrote:
That is like an insect advocating the use of bug spray.
Yeah....sure it is.
Word, write letters and sh*t yo.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
We humans have used animals for our own benefit in one way or another for ever ... it shows how drastic some changes in attitudes have been in the first world
Indeed - our attitudes (on all subjects) change over time much as hair-styles and clothes do. Slavery, nationalism, religion, homosexuality, sex in general, marriage, money (and the pursuit of), hedonism... women... the list is endless, and the changing attitudes to them over time can be quite a fascinating subject in itself. But what this shows up, of course, is that such attitudes are not based on truth or objectivism, but are little more than fashions of the time, or determined by expediency - what profits the society of the day. But generally, throughout history, animals have had a pretty rough time of it. One of the "justifications" for slavery was that negroes were no better than animals... For centuries women were treated as they were (and still are in many parts of the world) because is suited men to believe that they were of inferior intelligence. Unlike blacks and women though, it has never been expedient for the rest of us to think about animals in any way other than for our own selfish desires. And that is what it comes down to: people are inherently selfish. That's ok, at least historically - so is all of nature (and we are animals too, after all...) Until quite recently, and still in a large portion of the globe, life has been tough - damn tough, and people have done whatever they have needed to in order to survive. And that has meant putting their own needs first. Well, who am I to argue with a starving Biafran about that? But I will argue with you lot, because we here in the affluent First World of the 21st century do not have to continue like this. Just as we were forced to re-evaluate our attitudes towards women and blacks, perhaps it's about time we looked again at how we treat other life on this planet, and indeed the planet as a whole. No one - not you, me or any one else - is going to single-handedly change anything; all we can do is make our own idividual choices about how we live. It does not matter whether or not you believe the whole world could survive without exploiting animals - you, personally, can. If you want to, that is. You really can - all you have to do is make that choice. You will not be condemning starving Africans to death by so doing; you will not be telling children with leukemia that you don't care about them. But just like disab
Im all for looking after and being kind to animals. I've always had pets and have always loved them and looked after them. I think the basic difference in our opinions is that I see value in using animals for medical research. I believe many many people have benifited from this. If a shared your view that this research was pointless I'd agree with you that it should be stopped but I dont.
-
I would personally kill a million mice if it meant a cure for cancer and leukaemia... Think you picked the wrong example there...
------------------------------------------- Don't walk in front of me, I may not follow; Don't walk behind me, I may not lead; Just bugger off and leave me alone!!
There are people who will kill a million people if it meant a cure for cancer. There are people who will clone humans just for the purpose of experimentation and organ harvesting.
Word, write letters and sh*t yo.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I do care about animal welfare but I'll have no truck with animal rights, there are no such things so arguing the animals corner is a moot point, they don't have one. The issue is one of human morality, responsibility and stewardship.
That is just being pedantic. You do not care about animal welfare - if you did you would be a vegan, plain and simple. Anyone that says they care about animals and isn't vegan is a hypocrite - sorry if that offends you, but if you don't believe me, just open your eyes to what REALLY goes on in farms and factories around the world (including the USA and UK.)
So Fred, got a pair of leather shoes do we? Leather jacket? Wool jumper? I bet if you looked hard enough at yourself you would find your own hypocrisy as appalling as that which you are ascribing to others...
------------------------------------------- Don't walk in front of me, I may not follow; Don't walk behind me, I may not lead; Just bugger off and leave me alone!!
-
Im all for looking after and being kind to animals. I've always had pets and have always loved them and looked after them. I think the basic difference in our opinions is that I see value in using animals for medical research. I believe many many people have benifited from this. If a shared your view that this research was pointless I'd agree with you that it should be stopped but I dont.
Josh Gray wrote:
Im all for looking after and being kind to animals. I've always had pets and have always loved them and looked after them
...but you are prepared to support their abuse and torture every time you drink milk, eat cheese, or meat, or buy leather clothing, or any household product or cosmetic that has been tested on animals, or a thousand and one other such products on sale today. But you'd hate it if anyone kicked your kitty. Strange.
-
So Fred, got a pair of leather shoes do we? Leather jacket? Wool jumper? I bet if you looked hard enough at yourself you would find your own hypocrisy as appalling as that which you are ascribing to others...
------------------------------------------- Don't walk in front of me, I may not follow; Don't walk behind me, I may not lead; Just bugger off and leave me alone!!
_Damian S_ wrote:
So Fred, got a pair of leather shoes do we? Leather jacket? Wool jumper?
No, no and no again.
_Damian S_ wrote:
bet if you looked hard enough at yourself you would find your own hypocrisy as appalling as that which you are ascribing to others
I do at least try.
-
_Damian S_ wrote:
I would personally kill a million mice if it meant a cure for cancer and leukaemia
But it won't.
Fred_Smith wrote:
But it won't.
And you can say this with 100% certainty how?
------------------------------------------- Don't walk in front of me, I may not follow; Don't walk behind me, I may not lead; Just bugger off and leave me alone!!
-
_Damian S_ wrote:
So Fred, got a pair of leather shoes do we? Leather jacket? Wool jumper?
No, no and no again.
_Damian S_ wrote:
bet if you looked hard enough at yourself you would find your own hypocrisy as appalling as that which you are ascribing to others
I do at least try.
Reminds me a bit of the anti-globalisation protester here in Australia that was interviewed on TV during one "protest" (riot)... Interviewer: "What exactly are you protesting today?" Schmuck: "The evil global corporations who exploit workers in sweat shops blah blah blah" :camera pans down to Schmuck's feet: Interviewer: "You are wearing a pair of Nike shoes!" Schmuck: :runs off:
------------------------------------------- Don't walk in front of me, I may not follow; Don't walk behind me, I may not lead; Just bugger off and leave me alone!!
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
But it won't.
And you can say this with 100% certainty how?
------------------------------------------- Don't walk in front of me, I may not follow; Don't walk behind me, I may not lead; Just bugger off and leave me alone!!
I just refer to you to my original post that started all this....
-
Reminds me a bit of the anti-globalisation protester here in Australia that was interviewed on TV during one "protest" (riot)... Interviewer: "What exactly are you protesting today?" Schmuck: "The evil global corporations who exploit workers in sweat shops blah blah blah" :camera pans down to Schmuck's feet: Interviewer: "You are wearing a pair of Nike shoes!" Schmuck: :runs off:
------------------------------------------- Don't walk in front of me, I may not follow; Don't walk behind me, I may not lead; Just bugger off and leave me alone!!
Well go argue with Schmuck all you like - besides, I have no problem with globalisation. Nor - as I said - do I own leather shoes.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
Do you not keep a dog for your own pleasure?
He is my buddy, he wants to stay with me. He follows me around everywhere and is constantly bugging me. I can't walk 5 feet without him being right behind me. I didn't buy him or anything, he was stolen *cough* rescued from the owners who were abusing him. If it wasn't for the goodness in my heart he wouldn't be here.
Josh Gray wrote:
Yes we are and you yourself advocated using humans for medical experiments in your post above.
Yeah, we have a choice to take it. Testing it on animals that are not human is like testing it on a newborn human baby. Those who are rotting in jail for murder and such make perfect candidates for the involuntary tests. They get what they deserve and are paying their debt to society at the same time.
Word, write letters and sh*t yo.
:-D I could get to like you! (Not sure who'll pay more for that on this forum though - you or me!) Never mind - non illegitme carborundum, and all that...
-
Josh Gray wrote:
Im all for looking after and being kind to animals. I've always had pets and have always loved them and looked after them
...but you are prepared to support their abuse and torture every time you drink milk, eat cheese, or meat, or buy leather clothing, or any household product or cosmetic that has been tested on animals, or a thousand and one other such products on sale today. But you'd hate it if anyone kicked your kitty. Strange.
You are putting words in my mouth because it suits your predetermined view of my opinion. As an example I dont accept that abuse or torture is required to produce milk for drinking. I would argue that the dairy farmers needs those cows to earn an income to feed his family and will therefore treat them well. He will even pay for medical care from a vet when they require it.
Fred_Smith wrote:
But you'd hate it if anyone kicked your kitty
Because its unnessasary and produces no value. Infecting an animal with a sickness in order to gain a better understanding of that illness may produce value. If you cant see that then this discussion will go nowhere. You use a computer to communicate with me. What effect does the co2 produced to power your pc have on animals? How will the plastic in your PC impact animals when it ends up in land fill? What about the bacteria on your hands that are killed when you wash your hands? What about the animals that lost their habitat when a tree was cut down to make the door to the room you're sitting in? What about the worms that were dug up, disturbed and probably killed when your carrots were harvested? I assume you use roads to get about, do you think of the animals that die as road kill in order for you to be able to use those roads? Can yuo see my point here?
-
You are putting words in my mouth because it suits your predetermined view of my opinion. As an example I dont accept that abuse or torture is required to produce milk for drinking. I would argue that the dairy farmers needs those cows to earn an income to feed his family and will therefore treat them well. He will even pay for medical care from a vet when they require it.
Fred_Smith wrote:
But you'd hate it if anyone kicked your kitty
Because its unnessasary and produces no value. Infecting an animal with a sickness in order to gain a better understanding of that illness may produce value. If you cant see that then this discussion will go nowhere. You use a computer to communicate with me. What effect does the co2 produced to power your pc have on animals? How will the plastic in your PC impact animals when it ends up in land fill? What about the bacteria on your hands that are killed when you wash your hands? What about the animals that lost their habitat when a tree was cut down to make the door to the room you're sitting in? What about the worms that were dug up, disturbed and probably killed when your carrots were harvested? I assume you use roads to get about, do you think of the animals that die as road kill in order for you to be able to use those roads? Can yuo see my point here?
Josh Gray wrote:
Can yuo see my point here?
Yes, and fair enough, to a point - it's partly about where you draw the line, and partly about what one, as an idividual, can realistically do and what one can't. I have lived on farms and seen fior myself how cattle, pigs and other animals fare. All I can say is I'm glad I'm not one of them. You are deluding yourself if you think farming animals is all about fluffly little lambs frolicking in green fields on spring days... I have heard cows crying for three days non-stop when their babies are torn away from them at birth; seen them cooped up ankle deep in their own shit all winter... seen sows spend their entire life penned up in birthing crates thaey can't even turn around in - just stand up and lie down while they suckle one batch of piglets to the next.... I don't have to buy into this - I can easily change my habits and still live in the 21st cebtury, still be a part of society. Without becoming a monk on a mountain-top in Tibet, it's impossible to be completely non-hypocritical about it all, but I do what I can (either physdically or psychologically). Just finding the odd thing - such as having bought ccarrots that (probably) killed a few worms in the process - does not invalidate my point, whcih si that we can do better, and ought to. We can try, step by step, to make a better world. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
Can yuo see my point here?
Yes, and fair enough, to a point - it's partly about where you draw the line, and partly about what one, as an idividual, can realistically do and what one can't. I have lived on farms and seen fior myself how cattle, pigs and other animals fare. All I can say is I'm glad I'm not one of them. You are deluding yourself if you think farming animals is all about fluffly little lambs frolicking in green fields on spring days... I have heard cows crying for three days non-stop when their babies are torn away from them at birth; seen them cooped up ankle deep in their own shit all winter... seen sows spend their entire life penned up in birthing crates thaey can't even turn around in - just stand up and lie down while they suckle one batch of piglets to the next.... I don't have to buy into this - I can easily change my habits and still live in the 21st cebtury, still be a part of society. Without becoming a monk on a mountain-top in Tibet, it's impossible to be completely non-hypocritical about it all, but I do what I can (either physdically or psychologically). Just finding the odd thing - such as having bought ccarrots that (probably) killed a few worms in the process - does not invalidate my point, whcih si that we can do better, and ought to. We can try, step by step, to make a better world. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Fred_Smith wrote:
Yes, and fair enough, to a point
Exactly, and its up to each of us to determine for ourselves where that point is. You point out that animals suffer to provide me with the food I eat. I point out that animals suffer for you to have the roads you use to move around. Both are equaly valid points. Neither you nor I have the authority to judge which is greater or lesser than the other. The fact that you do so makes you a hipacrate.
-
Exactly. But all the candidates running right now are religious, even Hillary (or so she claims, and not that I would vote for her even if she was an atheist). With 80-90% of the population being religious, do you think a rational thinker would have much of a chance? :)
Most politicians are as religious as they believe the electore requires of them.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
Yes, and fair enough, to a point
Exactly, and its up to each of us to determine for ourselves where that point is. You point out that animals suffer to provide me with the food I eat. I point out that animals suffer for you to have the roads you use to move around. Both are equaly valid points. Neither you nor I have the authority to judge which is greater or lesser than the other. The fact that you do so makes you a hipacrate.
I'm not claiming the authority to judge, but I can still argue the toss about the judgement you or others make if I want - and you can argue back.
Josh Gray wrote:
You point out that animals suffer to provide me with the food I eat. I point out that animals suffer for you to have the roads you use to move around
There is a big difference between these two, and that is in what we, as individuals, can and can't do. Short of opting out of society altogether, I cannot help but "support", at least implicitly, the animal suffering that exists in order for roads to exist. If that makes me a hypocrite, it is at least not of my making. I really can't do much about it. But I can (quite easily) stop eating and buying animal products, and buying into the general abuse of animals in society. It really isn't hard to be vegan, not these days.
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
Yes, and fair enough, to a point
Exactly, and its up to each of us to determine for ourselves where that point is. You point out that animals suffer to provide me with the food I eat. I point out that animals suffer for you to have the roads you use to move around. Both are equaly valid points. Neither you nor I have the authority to judge which is greater or lesser than the other. The fact that you do so makes you a hipacrate.
It's been... fun... nice to give the new forum a good workout! But it's 1 a.m. here and I have to get up in the morning... ...no doubt you'll all be glad to get back to arguing about Global Warming then.... :)
-
Demon Possessed wrote:
That is like an insect advocating the use of bug spray.
Yeah....sure it is.
Word, write letters and sh*t yo.
CataclysmicQuantums wrote:
sure it is.
So that's your comeback? :laugh::laugh::laugh:
-
Well go argue with Schmuck all you like - besides, I have no problem with globalisation. Nor - as I said - do I own leather shoes.
I fear you missed the point... never mind...
------------------------------------------- Don't walk in front of me, I may not follow; Don't walk behind me, I may not lead; Just bugger off and leave me alone!!
-
I just refer to you to my original post that started all this....
And in completing the circle, I refer you to my previous post. ;-)
------------------------------------------- Don't walk in front of me, I may not follow; Don't walk behind me, I may not lead; Just bugger off and leave me alone!!