Animal Cruelty
<div class="IPBDescription">what's your stance?</div> I tried searching but couldn't find a thing so...
What do you think about animal cruelty(cruelty to animals, not animals being cruel to humans <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->). You probably know more about it than I do but how do you feel about a dozen of chickens being kept in a cage size of a TV and bunnies and monkeys used in experiments, for example putting some chemical in to their eyes to see how it affects and if it's fit to be used in a soap. When rabbits eyes melt they just dump it and try it on another one with slightly changed consistency.
It's difficult for me to really say what to do with this whole thing. I mean people need food and medicines but should we lessen lab-animals and make it better for "food-animals"? That would make costs higher but could we pay that couple of dollars/euros more in order to make animals lives better? Does animals have rights?
Discuss.
Edit: whatever <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
What do you think about animal cruelty(cruelty to animals, not animals being cruel to humans <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->). You probably know more about it than I do but how do you feel about a dozen of chickens being kept in a cage size of a TV and bunnies and monkeys used in experiments, for example putting some chemical in to their eyes to see how it affects and if it's fit to be used in a soap. When rabbits eyes melt they just dump it and try it on another one with slightly changed consistency.
It's difficult for me to really say what to do with this whole thing. I mean people need food and medicines but should we lessen lab-animals and make it better for "food-animals"? That would make costs higher but could we pay that couple of dollars/euros more in order to make animals lives better? Does animals have rights?
Discuss.
Edit: whatever <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
Comments
and considering they are thinking of genetically breeding cows with no legs so they can stack them and that they ALREADY have cows the literaly have port holes into their stomach and no one cares I say that they don't have much in the way of rights.
For sport, yes. For food, yes too because I can't really think that some one would need to kill animals with shotgun to live in this century(except in some third world countries, that is). Of course then there is other excuses like "Omg, there is already 1000 bears in this country! We must quickly kill half of them before t3h killar bears attack!"
Lab tests, I'm fine with. If the lab experiments benefit society and science, go for it...
What really **** me off are protestors. Recently, that alligator cruelty incident.
A woman calls the authorities on an alligator found in her neighborhood, then someone complains about them dragging the alligator from the back of a truck because it was the only other safe option to them. Honestly, they're not going to airlift an alligator from your neighborhood, and if you really wanted something humane, smear barbecue sauce on one of your children, and have them lead the alligator down to a river...
Make-ups don't benefit society.
What if live animals are used in lab tests to save money?
uh, oh. Three mods watching this thread. Rather flamatory subject but I think we can handle it <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
For sport, yes. For food, yes too because I can't really think that some one would need to kill animals with shotgun to live in this century(except in some third world countries, that is). Of course then there is other excuses like "Omg, there is already 1000 bears in this country! We must quickly kill half of them before t3h killar bears attack!" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well I geuss im one creul sonbitch. And you dont usually eat bear. But I can send you some top quality venison.
You can't help it, you have been probably brought up that way. Let me guess, your father hunts and taught you how to hunt? And his father hunted and his fathers father hunted etc. Yes, hunting is fun but it's not very useful and in many occasion it's rather cruel towards the animal.
Everyone don't get me wrong. I'm not a wacky protestor and I like the taste of a good meat but these things just makes you think.
Edit: This actually rises a new subject, what about fishing? I like to fish and when I really think of it, it's not useful and it's cruel towards fish. However fish have smaller brains and hence they don't feel as much, or do they? Yep, it's very difficult to draw a straight line.
And not to be biased I also wholly support medical expirements on humans to cure diseases as well as tests on criminals to figure out why they commit crimes, enough over crowded prisions time to stop them at the source, genetic screening.
Well, the short answer would be that I voted Green (they're part of Germanys government, so stuff the 'tree-hugging-hippy' comments). The long answer concerning animal transportation and similiar is that all scientific studies made show how we poison ourselves by treating the animals we're to eat as we do. The extreme stress, the overbreeding, the shortened chain of nurishment (pig creates excrements used to fertilize corn used to nurish pig), and the generally 'unnatural' treatment makes our hamburgers nice chemical cocktails.
As for animal experimentation, the definite slogan is 'humans first'. Sorry, but I'd rather see a dead bunny than a dead child. The question is however how far we have to go there. Animals are definetely <i>not</i> cheap alternatives to extensive chemical testings. Animals second, cash third.
First, there's a difference between cruelty and neccessity. I see the point in melting bunny eyes, when it prevents someone from stepping in for a nice shower and having his skin slough off when he tries out that new body-wash. I'm all for cubic hogs, compressed chickens, and stackable cows. Mostly as I've been to a farm (though didn't live on one, I was there extensively) and feel that:
1) Chickens deserve it. I hate chickens with a passion... tasty as they are, they are too f***ing STUPID to be permitted to live in any sense of comfort. I would recommend that they all die, but then I wouldn't get chicken strips, and would have to look elsewhere in making deviled eggs.
2) Pigs are already virtually immobile. I've seen a few that didn't even bother to get up before dragging themselves along in the mud to eat.
3) A cow bit me. Don't ask.
On the other hand, I, like many, enjoy the cute, fluffy little creatures like cats, rabbits, lemurs, and so on; until arriving very remotely at dogs and foxes at the very bottom of the list.
So. Why not just move testing over to the stupid animals? I'm pretty sure chickens have as sensitive of eyes as rabbits. Though rabbits usually won't make any noise when they're being tested upon... a rabbit-scream is a lot scarier than any noise a chicken could ever make.
(edit) Oh, and I factor fish as being approximately as stupid as chickens. They definitely feel a hook tearing through their lower mandible, and being hauled up into suffocation (imagine being airlifted by a meathook through your jaw into a burning building filled with smoke), but they honestly deserve it for being stupid enough to bite down on that meathook. (/edit)
Dunno, just felt like saying that, hehe.
I dont know why but that made me incredibly angry. And what about pest control. LAst year 12 sheep were loast to coyotes and there was a bounty on pelts. i personally bagged 3. So, is it yotes or sheep first?
The "bunnys melted eyes" is based on a document I saw few years ago. Some animal activists infiltrated a camera in to a test lab and some of that live image was shown in that document too, so i'm not basing my opinions on any activist propaganda <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Edit: Bad Karma, sorry if i offended you. I never meant to. Imo pest control is one of those few "legimate" reason for hunting. Don't get me wrong, i'm not judging you in anyway. I like to fish too and I don't see it any better than hunting. I'm just discussing on how this hunting/fishing is related to animal cruelty.
Sarcasm? Can't tell.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Over sensitivity is devestating to scientific progress in general, look how stem cell research was halted because of frankly idiotic personal beliefs. We can't cure cancer because that undeveloped embreyo has a soul? Give me a break. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cloning and embreyo testing is VERY complicated topic and imo it would require a thread of its own. In short: I'm all for using undeveloped embreyos and cloning only parts of humans(not brains though) for use in medical purposes. Though it seems rather odd that we use big $$$ to save lives of couple of hundred in advanced countries, when we could save lives of <i>thousands</i> with that same money if used in favor of third world countries. Bah, this deserves another thread. So many good topics and so little time <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
If animal testing had been around at the time it was created we would not have paracetamol today, as it's fatal to one of the animals drugs are tested on (I forget which - I think it's hamsters, certainly one or more rodents) and would never have made it through the testing process.
Animal testing can be counter productive.
First, keep the topic compact. Do not drag the gentech discussion in here.
Second, your 'let them all burn' attitude may seem cool and handy, but its societal implications stagger.
Oh, and if you really feel like advocating unconsensual human experimentation in here, wait till the feeling passes.
I was referring to this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And not to be biased I also wholly support medical expirements on humans to cure diseases as well as tests on criminals to figure out why they commit crimes, enough over crowded prisions time to stop them at the source, genetic screening. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Few criminals are young enough to be considered embryos.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->someone's gonna design a nice, high-growth rate, free range-capable livestock cow or chicken or some crap, with a POS nervous system (don't know what POS is? refer to waste in toilet bowl)
and then everyone's happy!!!! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Surely. Until the cancer patients come rolling in.
Folks, bend your head around the idea that screwing with nature makes it screw back. This is no 'live in harmony' bogus, it's a simple, vital rule: Nature does not give second chances.
We have no damn clue of how the manipulations we perform on our food will result on us.
I was referring to this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And not to be biased I also wholly support medical expirements on humans to cure diseases as well as tests on criminals to figure out why they commit crimes, enough over crowded prisions time to stop them at the source, genetic screening. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Few criminals are young enough to be considered embryos. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
ohhh, that was only half serious, as in a generalized "I would have nothing against if they could do it sort of thing."
but on a serious note there have been violent criminals who consented to having tests done on them but regulatory laws of incarciration prevented them. I dunno if there was a way to spot a genetic trait that caused extreme violence in humans and a safe way to get rid of it don't you think it would be beneficial?
As for animals, I think Spyder Monkey said it best, blatant cruelty no, research and good for society yes.
It has been proven that there can be no definite, inevitable genetic cause for <i>any</i> kind of behaviour, which would make this kind of 'predetermination study' relatively pointless. Consult Coil, who just did his molecular biology thesis, for further details.