Ok, I'm sorry, I'll stop posting on the morality thing. I'm pretty sure I've all but cemented my point, anyways. If you couldn't guess, I think PETA sucks huge hairy donkey balls... probably in the literal sence.
Ok, I'm sorry, I'll stop posting on the morality thing. I'm pretty sure I've all but cemented my point, anyways. If you couldn't guess, I think PETA sucks huge hairy donkey balls... probably in the literal sence.
[qq=Emerald Aeris]So you don't think it's immoral to say, drown kittens?[/qq]
I think it's bad, but I wouldn't say immoral. I think it's bad for the same reason it's bad to randomly chop down a tree in the woods, which my friend used to do for fun. The same way it's bad to spray-paint a car or building. I think it's bad to destroy things. I think it's WORSE to drown kittens than it is to destroy a park bench stomp on a rose bush growing in a field or something, but I don't think either is nearly as bad as drowning a child. Drowning a child is where I'd draw the line for morality.
Note, I myself can't even kill ants. I trap them in a cup and release them outside. But I don't think it's immoral when someone kills one, even though I really wish they wouldn't do it.
Didn't read the whole beautiful topic, but anyway, I believe PETA does go to extremes many times, yet, I do believe many of the things they fight for are correct. I mean, I don't believe meat is murder or anything, I am not a vegetarian, but we can't deny some way of slaughtering the animals is unecessarily cruel, and some way of treating them is too, not to mention the whole fur coat thing, wich I believe to be horrible. Sure, they can get fanatical, but I can't say I disagree with many things they say.
You mean most humans are incapable of rational thought?If cows were capable of rational thought, you would think that after thousands of years of domestication that they might realize "Huh, I'm only munching on this grass so that I can be milked and/or slaughtered" and do something about it. But they don't.
What's the difference between thinking something is bad and something is inmoral?I think it's bad, but I wouldn't say immoral.
Anyway...anyone want some baby seal juice?
"That's just a little hypocritical. You should be expected to back up why animals deserve as good as people."
But there is no fact on that matter. It's all opinion. I can't link you an article that says "animals deserve better: new study shows!".
"There are NO known wild cattle in this world, that's a simple fact."
What I more wanted you to back up was the fact that cattle would be too stupid to move on once they're eaten all the food. The rest of the things about cattle are completely normal for ungulates.
"And you work in a LAB!?! You know as well as anyone that your rodents are used and thrown away. Is a rat less deserving than a cow?"
I'm training to become a vet tech. Ie, I practice on rats for medical purposes. It's different.
"Frankly, most mice are provably smarter than most bovines. A cow can't learn to run a maze."
Again, proof please. You can't just state things as facts and not expect that people might ask you to prove it. If you want me to link you to stuff, ask me.
"Any species that wants equality should EARN it. Humanity had to against itself..."
I don't see why you'd want to take advantage of weaker species, why they should have to prove anything. Another life needs help. That's enough for me. That genuinely makes me sad. I tend to think that because of our intelligence humanity would act like a shepard to the environment and animals in it, but instead we just destroy, because of people like you.
"Is this about PETA anymore or just the morality?"
The arguement has evolved from there, but it's still mostly about PETA. Not much can be said flatly about that. You can say you agree with them, or you don't. If you elaborate, talking about what we are now is inevitable.
Dr. Unne: that's a very interesting distinction between 'bad' and 'immoral', usually I equate the two. Even though you're dealing with an object, I would still say that burning someone's house down etc. is immoral because we're hypothetically talking about a PERSON burning down a house, and his action then being immoral. Same goes for kittens drowning.
I would say that burning someone else's property is immoral because it's someone else's property and because it hurts that person to lose their property, not because of something inherent in the property itself. I would say it's bad to destroy things because I don't like when people destroy things. I think it's bad to eat tomatoes because they taste terrible. I think it's bad to kill kittens because it makes me feel uncomfortable to watch or think about it, and because I like kittens. There's a difference between distasteful and immoral. Harming animals is distasteful in the extreme, but not immoral by my standards. It's just a matter of definition, like I said.
Just how is it different? Or is it just different because it suits your purposes? Do you think we should practice on live people for medical purposes? Your argument is wearing thin.Originally Posted by Emerald Aeris
Please! It goes great with these scrambled condor eggs.
ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
(1) Eric Clapton is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
"Just how is it different? Or is it just different because it suits your purposes? Do you think we should practice on live people for medical purposes? Your argument is wearing thin."
It's different because it's for the greater good, and there isn't an alternative. There are alternatives to treating cattle the way we do.
Why aren't there any alternatives? I'm sure there are plenty of alternatives to using "lab rats." You're only being selective in your reasoning.
ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
(1) Eric Clapton is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
There are? I can't think of any.
Not be a vet. We're supposed to eat things that don't have any negative effect on animals, she can get a job that doesn't have any negative effects on animals, oh except for the very rich who can afford to get their dogs $3000 surgery.
Or, of course, practice on synthetic animals modled after the animals, I'm sure it can be done. Might cost a bit more than the average mouse from whever they get them, though. But hey, so would steak if they were treated like kings before being killed in the most humane way possible.
Last edited by MecaKane; 03-01-2005 at 02:42 PM.
But if people like me didn't do it anyway even though they don't like animal testing there would be no vets, no doctors, nothing. That has a much larger negative effect on everything.
We do use replacements for a while. Pieces of hose, chicken wings, but you really have to learn to cope with a squiggling animal. There is no substitute. It's done as humanely as possible.
"Don't be a vet" is not an argument. If she has studied for this, she isn't going to work in a damn McDonald's. Plus, it's a necessary thing, and it brings benefits.
And reproducing an animal in perfect natural conditions is impossible, so far. How can you expect to do an artificial living creature? I said living, not "it looks like it's alive but it's a machine".
There's no real substitute for the taste of a juicy steak, either. If people like me didn't eat them, there'd be no butchers, no steakhouses, no nothing!
Should it be done as humanely as possible, though? Of course.
You heard it here first, Unne is Ted Nugent.
does it really matter how animals are killed if they're going to die in the end surely that's the worst treatment.
Your sig is too hilarious and witty, thus i have removed it to protect the minds of all forum goers
-The allways inspiring leeza
I was online looking for free stickers, and then one day i get some package in the mail from PETA they give me free stickers and a nickel every monthi dont do anything they just give them to me!!!!!!
Posting Permissions
