Natually, I said that animal testing was essential to medical science and that personal preference, just like anything else, should be respected.

I also noted that I seriously doubted that any animals really had souls or level of sentiency that humans did and therefore were an inferior species.

vasudeva:
I think it's probably essential. I don't think it's humane, but given the alternative... It'd be cool if we could test on human convicts, but if we set up a reward system to give them an incentive to volunteer, then we'd conceivably be guilty of whatever you call that crime when you take advantage of someone who's in dire straits.

That we're superior to other species is unquestionable, but I think as you go up the scale in complexity you get closer and closer to organisms that can experience grief and terror -- dolphins, dogs, monkeys -- which suggests to me that giving them stimuli that cause these experiences amounts to torture.

I'd kick a crab without a second thought, but I'd only kick a dog if it were attacking me, or maybe wearing a sweater.

The only time I can remember being really pissed at LOki, we were discussing this very topic years ago, and he drew the line, as I recall, at human/non-human. I think the line should be drawn (arbitrarily, possibly) at capable-of-emotion/not-capable-of-emotion.

qwerty: I've been called an animal due to my lack of human emotion when I'm dealing with people who display the same lack of emotion when threating to knock my block off. Yet by an act of god I've managed to come out with only 6 facial scars in 3 years. W00tz0r for me and my fighting skillz.

As for testing cosmedical treatments on animals, I'm all for it if it means that girls look hawt!!!!1! HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

vasudeva:That we're superior to other species is unquestionable, but I think as you go up the scale in complexity you get closer and closer to organisms that can experience grief and terror -- dolphins, dogs, monkeys -- which suggests to me that giving them stimuli that cause these experiences amounts to torture....

...The only time I can remember being really pissed at LOki, we were discussing this very topic years ago, and he drew the line, as I recall, at human/non-human. I think the line should be drawn (arbitrarily, possibly) at capable-of-emotion/not-capable-of-emotion.

Sunny77: mating a pig and a donkey can produce qwerty

fix't

dreymers: I think that most sentient animals would tell you that they can feel pain - if they could talk.

I would also bet that most species consider themselves to be superior to all other species. Score one for sophism.

middle_age_man: From an evolutionary stand point I think human exploitation of animals gave us a boost in the advancement of our own species. Our ability to process other living things into an end product is hardly shameful; we are just far cleverer about it than other organisms. I don’t see the difference between a predator stalking and killing prey and humans using animals for food, clothing or medical advancement. Unlike other animals we can make the conscious decision to be merciful.

dreymers:

Yet there is a difference. When a pack of wolves tracks, hunts, and mercilessly tears its prey apart, eating out its guts while it's still kicking, there is a certain raw beauty to it. But with humans, the whole process has been institutionalized - our cruelty is a cold, passionless, logical process, and in many cases just plain ugly.

I only buy free-range meat and eggs from cageless chickens.

LORDKAHUNA: Here is how I break it down:

People in my circle (friends, family, etc) = first and foremost over any animal.

LilBabyPissmouth: A point to ponder:
I make the meanest steak and even meaner chikin balls...ironic, isn't it?

wolfer:

I have never seen balls on a chicken, how do you find them? Vas do you eat chiken balls?

AcheronDCS: "I would also bet that most species consider themselves to be superior to all other species. Score one for sophism."

I think sophism requires cognizance. I really don't feel that other animals share this superiority complex that is so inherant with humans. Only about half a dozen species have actual self awareness, and we are the only ones that have thumbs.

metatron:
Natually, I said that animal testing was essential to medical science and that personal preference, just like anything else, should be respected.

vasudeva:
I think it's probably essential. I don't think it's humane, but given the alternative... It'd be cool if we could test on human convicts, but if we set up a reward system to give them an incentive to volunteer, then we'd conceivably be guilty of whatever you call that crime when you take advantage of someone who's in dire straits.

metatron:
I also noted that I seriously doubted that any animals really had souls or level of sentiency that humans did and therefore were an inferior species. These properties of existence, I said, almost required humans to serve some sort of role as "masters."

vasudeva:
That we're superior to other species is unquestionable, but I think as you go up the scale in complexity you get closer and closer to organisms that can experience grief and terror -- dolphins, dogs, monkeys -- which suggests to me that giving them stimuli that cause these experiences amounts to torture.

AcheronDCS:
Agreed with the sentiments regarding animals and upper level of intelligence, most animals ARE inferior to humans, but if you go around hurting animals there is probably something emotionally wrong with YOU.

Uart:
I wouldn't hesitate to eat ANY animal, even a dolphin (well, maybe a monkey, they have a thumb, and it'd skeeve me at first), on the basis of it's intelligence/emotion level. As long as it isn't a person, it can be fried. However, I wouldn't go out and torture these same animals. I'd kill them for food but I'd do it quick and painless -- bullet through the brain or something -- the same way I'd mercy-kill any of you guys.

metatron:
Just to make matters worse, I said that the animal rights movement has a fad-like attraction for general animal lovers that need something to cling on to.

metatron:
Holy shit, you could see my teacher getting red in the face with every word I said. A few other yogurteaters in the class huffed and puffed and vehemently disagreed with me.

Uart:
I like animals, but they aren't human and therefore don't have rights.

LORDKAHUNA:
animals do not equal people

vasudeva:
The only time I can remember being really pissed at LOki, we were discussing this very topic years ago, and he drew the line, as I recall, at human/non-human. I think the line should be drawn (arbitrarily, possibly) at capable-of-emotion/not-capable-of-emotion.

dinoza:
It's interesting to note that dogs, as a domesticated animal, have evolved the ability to express human emotions, such as wagging the tail in happiness, angry barking, etc (more literature on how these evolved can be found elsewhere, I just remember reading it somewhere.) So that raises the question, are dog emotions genuine and completely what they display them to be, or not really as strong and complex as human emotions, or nothing more than pushing our buttons, wagging the tail to get a treat, being angry to protect space, without the same feeling that we have? The same question can be asked of all animals, do we really know they have emotions/feelings/whatever, and if they don't, why can't we do whatever we want to them within an environmentally protective context? I don't advocate torture, but it's torture to raise humans in the same way we raise livestock, and I really don't have a problem with farms except in terms of environmental destruction.

So I would say it comes down to, what amount of human emotion must an animal display before we feel bad when we torture it? I would be very strongly against raising chimpanzees for slaughter the same way we raise cattle, just because the chimps display more human emotion. It would call up science fiction short stories about aliens raising humans for the slaughter because we don't display emotions and intelligence in ways the aliens understand.

LOki: .

I do find it interesting however, that you inject the "environmental" issue into the discussion. It is my opinion that the current species environmental activist, like these aninimal rights activists, are less concerned with the consequences their actions and policies have on the environemt or animals than they are with their capacity to curtail the rights of their fellow human beings, and tell them exactly what to do with their lives.