Not trying to be a troll, but PETA scares me...

[Destai]

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 month i dont do anything they just give them to me!!!!!!

How could you hate an organisation like that???
My general opinion is humans are all round equal to animals but are looky enough to be given the choice of wrther to eat meat like animals or vegetables like animals or both. Hey, Im not doing anything an animal wouldnt so why not? The only thing that bothers me is there life choices being forced upon me.

[Wiegrahf42]

Without animal research, development of medicine hits a rock wall, unless we do what some countries have done and test it on humans *ahem* Nazis *ahem*

[Doomgaze]

Without animal research, development of medicine hits a rock wall, unless we do what some countries have done and test it on humans *ahem* Nazis *ahem*

Humans don't taste good, stop going off on tangents

[Shadow Nexus]

Humans don't taste good, stop going off on tangents

Baaaaaaaah, dumbass, thats because you are only feeding on adults. Human meat is only good when they are five years old or less.

About animal testing, only a 6%- or 4%, I am not sure- is done for medical pruposes. The rest is cosmetics, soaps and even tobacco. Why would you force monkeys to smoke all day long, anyway? Well, stoned cats are fun, but thats not with tobacco.

[DocFrance]

I'm just confused how one can consider eating meat to be immoral, but have no qualms about animal testing. They both serve a significant purpose.

[Shadow Nexus]

I'm just confused how one can consider eating meat to be immoral, but have no qualms about animal testing. They both serve a significant purpose.

One could say that animal testing for medical prupouses is necessary for the development of medicine, and that helps people. On the other hand, eating meat is not necessary. Sure, it's natural, it's something most of us do, but it is not necessary, one could live perfectly without meat, and could find substitutes of the nutrients given by meat on other sources (Don't ask me, I am no specialist, but I know it's possible, or vegies would die). So yeah, probably it's more healthy and all.

My opinion? Killing animals slowly and with cruelty is inmoral, and it's done. I like to look the source of my meat when I buy just to be sure it comes from a place where certain regulations are followed. But is eating meat inmoral? Well, dunno, everyone can believe what they want, but personally I don't find it that way, and I like meat, and I will continue to eat it. Hey, in a way, I'd rather be a vegetarian, I can understand them perfectly, it feels bad to eat rabbit on the paella when you think about it, buy hey, I'm not perfect and I am not a saint, and I fall on temptation. And rabbit tastes really good, and on the paella it tastes better.

[DocFrance]

One could say that animal testing for medical prupouses is necessary for the development of medicine, and that helps people. On the other hand, eating meat is not necessary. Sure, it's natural, it's something most of us do, but it is not necessary, one could live perfectly without meat, and could find substitutes of the nutrients given by meat on other sources (Don't ask me, I am no specialist, but I know it's possible, or vegies would die). So yeah, probably it's more healthy and all.

Sure, there are alternatives to eating meat, but it's not quite the same thing. I'm sure there's plenty of good stuff in meat that you can't get from tofu or what have you. Similarly, just as Aeris said, there is no perfect substitute for animal testing. You'd have to sacrifice accuracy for the sake of the animal.

Furthermore, if animal testing is necessary for veterinary purposes, why do we use animals for human medical purposes? After all, there are some pretty significant differences between human and animal physiology (though they are mostly similar), so why aren't we experimenting on human beings? It's necessary, don't you agree?

And rabbit tastes really good, and on the paella it tastes better.

Mmm... paella. Though I prefer it with shrimp (Mediterrannean style).

[Tokki Wartooth]

The U.S. supreme court says thats not true. They say something thats different will always be better or worse. And i agree with them.

Yep. Just like the US supreme court says homosexuals are less of people than us real people.

I'd eat a person before I ate an animal, because people are mean and stupid and actually deserve to be eaten. And some of them taste pretty good.

[fire_of_avalon]

I haven't read the lower half of the posts, so I may be making a fool of myself, but there's one branch of the topic that has gone on long enough.

Predatory animals are not held to a moral code, so there's no sense in discussing the morality of of wolf killing a deer or a lion killing a gazelle. Like it or not, everyone has morals. We understand what cruelty is, and we understand what compassion is. We cannot convieniently set these aside for the sake of argument.

Secondly, it's useless to use the example of a predatory animal eating meat, because they HAVE no choice. They are genetically designed for killing meat and eating meat. You can't use them as an example of what humans do, because we have the choice. A mountain lion doesn't.

I consider myself pro-animal rights, but I eat meat. It offends me that people think I can't respect animals while eating them. I pay attention to where my meat, cheese, and eggs come from. I don't buy products that use real feathers, and I don't wear fur. I buy organic, and free range, even though it breaks the bank, because I DO respect all life as equal to mine. I just know that one day something will feed off of me, so there's no moral reason for me to NOT eat animals that were treated kindly during their lives, and killed humanely.

And true, I can't always be 100% sure that none of my animal products were treated humanely... but neither can a vegetarian of vegan be 100% sure their food contains no animal byproducts. We just have to trust what's on the label.

[Emerald Aeris]

"Sure, there are alternatives to eating meat, but it's not quite the same thing. I'm sure there's plenty of good stuff in meat that you can't get from tofu or what have you. Similarly, just as Aeris said, there is no perfect substitute for animal testing. You'd have to sacrifice accuracy for the sake of the animal."

There is no substitute period for medical animal testing, not yet, especially the kind that I do (which is learning how to restrain and do injections). You can have a perfect diet free of meat. It's not the same.

Besides that, it's not like it was an easy choice, I struggled with it for weeks, and I almost dropped out. But if I don't do this now, then I can't help animals later.

"Furthermore, if animal testing is necessary for veterinary purposes, why do we use animals for human medical purposes? After all, there are some pretty significant differences between human and animal physiology (though they are mostly similar), so why aren't we experimenting on human beings? It's necessary, don't you agree?"

Yeah, that's a point made by many animal rights activists, and I agree. A lot of testing done is unnecessary. We DO test on humans, and yes, we should. Testing done on only animals was responsible for the horrible birth defects that thalidomide caused (among other things).

"I just know that one day something will feed off of me, so there's no moral reason for me to NOT eat animals that were treated kindly during their lives, and killed humanely."

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

[MecaKane]

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

That's hippy bull for not acting out of revenge, I don't think foa meant it as "screw those animals, if they're gonna eat me, I'm gonna eat THEM >:O"

And it's not a perfect diet, because you don't get to taste meat. You might not care about that, but other people do, no one follows diets 100% on what's good for you, completly leaving out taste.

[Emerald Aeris]

"That's hippy bull for not acting out of revenge."

Well, yeah, because acting out of revenge is foolish and rash.


"I don't think foa meant it as "screw those animals, if they're gonna eat me, I'm gonna eat THEM "

He didn't say screw them, but he did say he eats them, basically, because he'll be eaten someday. I think the quote's applicable. Although I like the rest of his post, I don't like the logic used there. Or I could be interpreting wrong. We'll see.

"And it's not a perfect diet, because you don't get to taste meat. You might not care about that, but other people do, no one follows diets 100% on what's good for you, completly leaving out taste."

I meant perfectly healthy. You said that taste is important, therefore eating meat is ok, which is basically saying you can morally justify an action as long as it causes pleasure, in this case, taste. ... well, do you really need me to argue that point further? Not a good idea.

[Shadow Nexus]

so why aren't we experimenting on human beings? It's necessary, don't you agree?

Only with Jews. Oh, and gays and commies. No, seriously, I believe animal testing can be justified as long as it is necessary and makes sense, sometimes it is done unecessarily. Human testing? It depends. Suppose you are going to die and they tell you they have a cure...but only in theory, you will be the first one it will be tasted with. Would you accept? I would. Then there's the other kind of testing, when bad results would only make you feel sick for a week or something, nothing against that if the person has offered him/herself voluntary (probably for a pay).

[fire_of_avalon]

I wasn't trying to justify my animal consumption by saying that they'll eat me, because I don't feel I need to justify it. Like I said before, I eat meat because it's good for me, and because I'm designed to eat it. I'm also designed to eat plants, so I eat those too. When I crave protein, I crave a meat source, and while this is probably the result of deriving all my proteins from meat, it can't be argued that meat is the best source of it.

I suppose in the end I do see it as cyclical. It's not really an eye for an eye thing, it's following nature, but following as morally as I can. That's how I see it.

But this thread isn't about me.

[udsuna]

My GOD, Aeris... I leave the argument for a couple days thinking "whatever, I'm the only effective debater for the killing of animals, and I'm getting bored of this, you can have this thread and debate, for all I care..." and then I'm replaced by at least two others.
We really are more like the animal kingdom more than you seem to realize- wolves work much the same way as what I've just seen . Take it from someone who knows how to score for debating, you've lost the technicals. The best I've heard from you comes down to nothing more than "Just because". Whereas your opposition at least gives empirical reasons why they think the way they do.
Anyways, human beings are PREDATORS. We were built, by god or nature, to be predators. We hunt and we kill because, by accident or by design, that's what we do. It's a part of our nature, and even those intellectuals amongst us that so enjoy a good debate are catering that instinct . The desire for success and even the need for competition are part of our predatory nature.
It has granted us near mastery over ourselves and our environs. And soon, we'll have what little we still lack. The world is our oyster, sometimes we like the shiny pearl, and other times we prefer a seafood dinner. You have every right to say we're in the wrong, you may even be right, but I'd love to see you give any actual evidence of it.
Ironically, I happen to be a nature worshipper... which is a good laugh, when you think my stance. But, as I've said before- undue harm of another, human or animal, is wrong. But, for the most part, what you've pointed out is NOT undue. Time and effort detracted away from making livestock happier is resources that can be focused on something more important .
You know, like curing cancer and other disease. Put your hippy efforts to saving HUMAN lives first, we'll get to the animals when all the more important stuff has been taken care of. People should become vets only if they're not good enough to practice real medicine .