Welcome to PunksAndSkins.com

Please login or register

Being a member will give you full access to the website and will allow you to participate to the discussion forums



Log-in

 
 
   Lost your password?

Not a member yet? Sign Up!

Username:  

E-mail Address:  

Confirm E-mail:  
Password:  
Confirm Password:

[Anti-Bot] What continent is United States located on ?


View unanswered posts | View active topics






 Share on Facebook

more SKINHEAD t-shirts
more PUNK t-shirts
more SKA t-shirts
Animal Liberation t-shirts
Anti-capitalist t-shirts

Music Downloads

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
 Animal Testing, Vegetarian, Vegan 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: 03 Feb 2011, 10:28
Posts: 192
Post  Re: Animal Testing, Vegetarian, Vegan
Share this album on Facebook

But why wouldn't you want to eat a baby seal, or a cat or dog? Why are they any different to a cow, pig or chicken? The difference is you've just been surrounded by the pretense that some animals should be 'meat animals' whilst others are 'cute, pet animals'. I think all animals are equal, therefore if you're going to eat a cow, then why be so revolted by the idea of eating a cat? You said it's emotionality that stops you eating a cat/seal/dog, so why doesn't emotionality stop you eating other animals like a cow/pig/chicken?

Logically, I think there is a difference between eating animals and plants. Both have evolved, yes, but one has evolved completely devoid of any feeling such as pain (as far as we know that is, I mean in terms of a CNS), emotion and so on, whilst the other has evolved with all those feelings. Isn't it blindingly obvious that plants are here to not only give us oxygen to breathe, but to give us food? After all, we can obtain all our needed nutrients and minerals from plant-based foods. Plants are our life source in every way, not animals. I think we were meant to live together with animals peacefully, I'm sure it was never 'intended' for us to devour animals, hence why humans can become very sick from living off meat alone and why meat can give us several health problems, diseases and cancers. I really don't think the human body was designed to eat meat, at least not initially anyway. Even now though, our body isn't quite used to it and meat takes a long time to digest. Sorry, I started rambling on there lol

You said you think it's unethical to end a life unless it's required to maintain your own... but killing and eating animals isn't required to maintain your own life. As I just said above where I started rambling, meat can give us a heck of a lot of health issues.
Really? I think it is a fact. If an animal is killed in the name of gluttony, it is evil in my eyes. If an animal is killed simply for someones own sick pleasure, it is evil as well. The only time killing an animal can be justified is if it is in incredible pain and can't live, or it can live but will be in pain for the rest of its life..[/quote]

Because they're cute! Emotionality, not logic keeps me from eating dogs, so asking for a logical reason to back up this position is in vain.

I agree that all animals are equal, but I go slightly further and believe that all living things are equal and should be treated with respect. We're all linked by 7 billion years of cellular evolution and 15 billion years of cosmic evolution, we are all brothers and sisters of the universe. Again, I will say that a difference in evolution does not, in my opinion, change the fact that that creature deserves a chance to live.

If I were to logically carry out my emotionality, I would have to stop eating any living creatures whatsoever.

It's not "blindingly obvious that plants are here to not only give us oxygen to breathe, but to give us food", not to me anyway. You need the religious assumption for that to be obvious, but without the delusion that the universe was created specifically for us, the obvious assumption is that everything we see is an evolution of hydrogen, nothing was created for any purpose, the only reason anything living exists is because of competition, the fact that microscopic organisms consumed one another to grow and survive. Here's my religious belief: the universe is what most people consider "god", we were all created out of its own energy by billions of years of nuclear fusion followed by a gravitational process to create and bring all of our molecules from dying stars to the Earth, where after billions more years these molecules eventually formed every single thing we know. We humans, as Carl said "are a way for the cosmos to know itself." but in the end, we are no different than a tree, a rock, or a tiny piece of a star, all is recycled back into oneness. Actually, I guess it isn't that religious since all of those are observable truths based on the big bang and nuclear fusion, but it's the closest I can get and it suits me just fine. If we are to consume one part of this universe of which we are a part, why not another?

You can't survive off meat alone because humans began as a herbivore. Human intelligence, however, did not evolve until our guts were able to digest meat =). Nothing was intended, everything is chaotic, our lives were guaranteed billions of years ago by the first second of the big bang.

Killing is required to maintain my own life, the differentiation between animal-life and plant-life is one made in your own mind, it is not an objective fact that eating one is more moral than eating the other, that assumption is your own.

You think it's a fact that killing is evil? And what gives you this impression? I had thought you were not of the God assumption. Without that assumption, morality can not be a fact, but only an opinion based on circumstances of life. You have to say "in my opinion" after a thought like that, or you need a fact to back it up. If I'm not going to hell for killing something, than it is not factually evil, is it? I agree that killing out of malice is 'evil', but all this means is that our lives were not so different, that we were forced to the same conclusion on this matter. That we both believe the same thing does not imply objective truth, even if every human being on the planet were to agree, which they do not.



Quote:
No I still wouldn't eat them.

You can survive without ending innocent lives, you don't need meat to live. I'm not suggesting that a CNS is also worth 'preserving' either, I merely mentioned it.

I didn't mention the naked mole rat because I said that it isn't just about animals feeling pain that stops me eating them.


Are you assuming plants are guilty? Or are they not alive?



Quote:
What do you mean, logical reasons? What are your reasons for eating meat that are logical? I don't think "because I need to survive" is a logical answer, because you can live perfectly fine (and healthier) without meat.

Honestly, my list of reasons is very long but they are mostly moral reasons. If by logical you mean 'factual', then I think the waste issue does count. There's also other things such as there are no laws governing the welfare of livestock, therefore farmers aren't required by law to keep their animals in safe, hygienic and spacious living conditions. Really the whole meat industry is practically lawless. Also, there are several case studies where scientists 'followed' two groups, omnivores and vegetarians, for many years to compare the health effects and mortality rates between the groups. These studies have shown that vegetarians live longer (at least 3-6 years longer I believe it was) and with very little to no health problems. The omnivores, on the other hand, had far more health problems - some died of cancer, some had several diseases and in general died several years before the veggies did. This is very interesting and does play a small part in my reason for not eating meat, but really even if you presented me with proof that being vegetarian was seriously bad for me, I still wouldn't stop!

Well anyway, this is hard to explain. I just don't want my body to be some sort of graveyard for animals who would otherwise have lead healthy, happy lives. Humans exploit animals so much, and I don't want to be a part of that.


I don't need a logical reason to eat meat, per se. I have a logical reason to eat living creatures, which is survival. Until I have a logical reason to differentiate between the values of different lives, I don't need a logical reason to eat any one of them specifically, because they are all, in my opinion, equal, so the survival reason covers them all.

By logical reasons not to eat meat, I mean reasons that are not scenario-specific. Wastage is not a logical reason because there can exist a scenario in which this would not be a problem. What if we fed them properly, they didn't add more Co2 or pollution than we would without them, and if there was enough room to feed everyone in the world with meat? In this scenario, you would still not eat meat, so waste is not your logical reasoning.

Lol, and vegetarians live longer in general, ofcourse. But omnivores that pay attention to their diet generally live longer than the average omnivore(because the average omnivore has very little health-knowledge) as well. Switching to vegetarianism forces you to pay attention to your health, so ofcourse this will have an impact on your health. Most omnivores are very ignorant about health and diet, this does not, however, say anything about the possible health of an omnivorous diet. If a vegetarian was as ignorant about his diet as the average omnivore, I don't believe he could survive a year.



Quote:
Fair point, well made. Haha thank you, I can't say I 'love' your beliefs because I don't agree, however I do like the way in which you are debating with me; politely and logically. :)


Lol, well your opinion is one of love, not of hate like most of the opinions I argue with on here. Showing impoliteness to love is counter-active to my goals. Usually I argue that you are wrong or ignorant and that your opinion harms the world, but in this case I don't believe that is true, I simply believe you are mistaking emotionality(love) for logic. "What is done out of love always occurs beyond good and evil." -Nietzsche Love and logic are the only two things in human thought that are beyond good and evil, which is what makes them the two greatest forces in our experience, in my opinion. They are still separate forces with separate applications though.

Quote:
I think they're angry because of their job, their pay and at the chickens who are probably hard to control and won't stop squawking, etc so they just get pissed off and go crazy, totally losing it with them. I've seen the footage of the KFC abbatoirs showing workers stamping on chickens until they would literally explode, one saying he did it because he liked the sound it made when it burst..
I read something interesting in a book once, where the author said he had spoken to a taxi driver who said he used to work in a slaughterhouse. The driver said that one day, he actually started to enjoy killing the animals, so he quit immediately because it had scared him.

Yeah I am saying that. I know it sounds a bit silly in some ways, but I say it because they both result in the same fate; murder. Put it like this - if they really could give the animals great living conditions and properly knock them unconscious before slaughter, it wouldn't be as bad. I still wouldn't eat it, I never will, but that would definitely be better. But this is not the reality of the meat industry or any farm and I don't think it ever will be. Fact is, giving animals a decent environment to live in costs far too much for the farmers, and involves too much work, effort and time. The same goes for the slaughtering of animals in an abbatoir - there will never be any law in place to ensure animals are killed painlessly or for workers to handle the animals carefully. Therefore I don't buy into the whole 'cruelty-free', 'ethical' or 'free range' meat thing! Besides, things like free range and organic are just gimmicks to stop people feeling guilty about eating meat and a lot of the time these are found to be false - the majority of 'free range' animals go out, roughly, once every few days and even then it's only for a short while. Hardly giving them much freedom is it?

And no animal is ever killed painlessly - death for livestock is always painful. The stun guns don't work properly; a lot of the time the animal has to be repeatedly stunned before falling unconscious, and even then they regain consciousness quickly, so when they have their throats slit they are highly likely to be fully conscious. Some workers don't even stun them on the head, but on their sides. I've seen footage of workers trying to stun them whilst they were being slaughtered (wtf, right?) and then there is the footage of workers trying to knock animals unconscious by simply whacking them on the head with a hammer.

Sorry... seriously long reply there!


STUPID FUCKIN CHICKENS! lol, that's all I can think every time I see a video like that. There's something wrong with these people for sure, raging out on fuckin chickens... FUCKIN CHICKENS NOT GETTING IN THE VAN!! I FUCKIN HATE CHICKENS!!!!!!


Clearly all those problems are problems of the slaughterhouses, not logical problems with eating meat itself. You haven't given me one problem that isn't scenario-specific, other than that you don't think plants are worthy of your love.

_________________
"Liberty,as we all know,cannot flourish in a country that is permanently on a war footing, or even a near war footing.Permanent crisis justifies permanent control of everybody and everything by the agencies of central government."

Aldous Huxley


11 Jul 2011, 19:31
Profile
United States

Joined: 26 May 2011, 17:26
Posts: 102
Post  Re: Animal Testing, Vegetarian, Vegan

Check out the Youth of Today video: No More. Awesome old school vegan video.

12 Jul 2011, 01:12
Profile
User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2011, 14:59
Posts: 166
Post  Re: Animal Testing, Vegetarian, Vegan

Ripvil wrote:
But why wouldn't you want to eat a baby seal, or a cat or dog? Why are they any different to a cow, pig or chicken? The difference is you've just been surrounded by the pretense that some animals should be 'meat animals' whilst others are 'cute, pet animals'. I think all animals are equal, therefore if you're going to eat a cow, then why be so revolted by the idea of eating a cat? You said it's emotionality that stops you eating a cat/seal/dog, so why doesn't emotionality stop you eating other animals like a cow/pig/chicken?

Logically, I think there is a difference between eating animals and plants. Both have evolved, yes, but one has evolved completely devoid of any feeling such as pain (as far as we know that is, I mean in terms of a CNS), emotion and so on, whilst the other has evolved with all those feelings. Isn't it blindingly obvious that plants are here to not only give us oxygen to breathe, but to give us food? After all, we can obtain all our needed nutrients and minerals from plant-based foods. Plants are our life source in every way, not animals. I think we were meant to live together with animals peacefully, I'm sure it was never 'intended' for us to devour animals, hence why humans can become very sick from living off meat alone and why meat can give us several health problems, diseases and cancers. I really don't think the human body was designed to eat meat, at least not initially anyway. Even now though, our body isn't quite used to it and meat takes a long time to digest. Sorry, I started rambling on there lol


That is my exact thought on this situation. I really like your views and the thought you put into this.


12 Jul 2011, 02:37
Profile
United States

Joined: 26 May 2011, 17:26
Posts: 102
Post  Re: Animal Testing, Vegetarian, Vegan

Is the co2 contribution of c.a.f.o.'s not a logical reason to consume less meat? I realize my contribution makes little difference but now I can feel superior to meat eaters and point my finger and say, "I would rather be part of the solution". It feels great!
Ripvil, I would like to subscribe to your Carl Sagan newsletter. Seriously though, it is nice to know that the litterary renaissance is alive and kicking despite Dan Brown and Oprah's book club


12 Jul 2011, 04:22
Profile
United Kingdom

Joined: 30 Jun 2011, 09:41
Posts: 174
Post  Re: Animal Testing, Vegetarian, Vegan

Ripvil wrote:
Because they're cute! Emotionality, not logic keeps me from eating dogs, so asking for a logical reason to back up this position is in vain.


Cows, pigs and chickens are cute too... so why do you eat them, then? I know you said emotionality stops you eating dogs and so on, but why doesn't emotionality stop you eating a cow, pig or chicken?

Ripvil wrote:
I agree that all animals are equal, but I go slightly further and believe that all living things are equal and should be treated with respect. We're all linked by 7 billion years of cellular evolution and 15 billion years of cosmic evolution, we are all brothers and sisters of the universe. Again, I will say that a difference in evolution does not, in my opinion, change the fact that that creature deserves a chance to live.


I don't think ALL living things are equal - plants are alive but not in the same way animals and humans are, it's silly to say they are the same. Plants do not have a beating heart, a huge network of blood vessels, blood pumping through its body, a pair of lungs, bones, cartilage, connective tissue, muscle, and so on... animals and humans do, but not plants. If you really believe that all living things are equal, then you should feel the same about- and extend it to- microorganisms. I bet you're thinking that sounds stupid, right? But microorganisms are living beings too, so do they not deserve your respect then? You wouldn't class microorganisms in the same way as animals and humans, same goes for plants.

Ripvil wrote:
It's not "blindingly obvious that plants are here to not only give us oxygen to breathe, but to give us food", not to me anyway. You need the religious assumption for that to be obvious, but without the delusion that the universe was created specifically for us, the obvious assumption is that everything we see is an evolution of hydrogen, nothing was created for any purpose, the only reason anything living exists is because of competition, the fact that microscopic organisms consumed one another to grow and survive.


You don't need the religious assumption for that at all - I'm not religious in any way. I don't think the universe was created specifically for us, but we have adapted ourselves to it. Maybe initially everything existed because of competition, but I think after that and until now it's all adaptation.

Ripvil wrote:
Here's my religious belief: the universe is what most people consider "god", we were all created out of its own energy by billions of years of nuclear fusion followed by a gravitational process to create and bring all of our molecules from dying stars to the Earth, where after billions more years these molecules eventually formed every single thing we know. We humans, as Carl said "are a way for the cosmos to know itself." but in the end, we are no different than a tree, a rock, or a tiny piece of a star, all is recycled back into oneness. Actually, I guess it isn't that religious since all of those are observable truths based on the big bang and nuclear fusion, but it's the closest I can get and it suits me just fine. If we are to consume one part of this universe of which we are a part, why not another?


Because nowadays we know better. A very, very long time ago, people didn't know what caused thunder and lightning, so they would just say "god did it" - they would say that for everything they didn't understand. Does that mean we have to act like that now? No, of course not. Same goes for our diet.

And I wouldn't call that a religious belief, just a belief lol. Religion is based off opinions and dumbass fairytales, what you said is practically fact so it doesn't fall under 'religion' at all.

Ripvil wrote:
You can't survive off meat alone because humans began as a herbivore. Human intelligence, however, did not evolve until our guts were able to digest meat =). Nothing was intended, everything is chaotic, our lives were guaranteed billions of years ago by the first second of the big bang.


But our guts haven't fully 'evolved' to digest meat. It can be digested, but it takes a long time and a lot of it ends up just staying there where it rots and causes problems and eventually bowel cancer. Surely if we are 'natural meat eaters' or 'designed to eat meat' like everyone implies, why would we get such health problems from meat?

No, you can't survive off meat alone because meat doesn't have all the required nutrients you need, and because it's plagued with a ton of saturated fat and cholosterol, not just because we began as a herbivore. If we were to just eat fruit, vegetables and other plant-based foods however, we'd be very healthy and completely fine. The evidence is all there in those scientific studies, it's been proven many times over.

Ripvil wrote:
Killing is required to maintain my own life, the differentiation between animal-life and plant-life is one made in your own mind, it is not an objective fact that eating one is more moral than eating the other, that assumption is your own.


Not really, the assumption is of many. You said several replies back that you didn't think eating plants and animals is the same, but now you are saying it is. And I'll say it again - no, killing isn't required to maintain your own life!

Ripvil wrote:
You think it's a fact that killing is evil? And what gives you this impression? I had thought you were not of the God assumption. Without that assumption, morality can not be a fact, but only an opinion based on circumstances of life. You have to say "in my opinion" after a thought like that, or you need a fact to back it up. If I'm not going to hell for killing something, than it is not factually evil, is it? I agree that killing out of malice is 'evil', but all this means is that our lives were not so different, that we were forced to the same conclusion on this matter. That we both believe the same thing does not imply objective truth, even if every human being on the planet were to agree, which they do not.


So if I went out now and killed a random person on the street for no reason whatsoever, you would not consider that evil? If I tortured someone then beat them to death, that is not evil? Killing in almost all forms is evil (not plants and microorganisms though, obviously). Thinking something is evil or not has fuck all to do with 'god'. You're not going to hell because there is no hell.

Ripvil wrote:
I don't need a logical reason to eat meat, per se. I have a logical reason to eat living creatures, which is survival. Until I have a logical reason to differentiate between the values of different lives, I don't need a logical reason to eat any one of them specifically, because they are all, in my opinion, equal, so the survival reason covers them all.


Survival isn't a logical reason, because you can survive without eating living creatures (again, I am not counting plants because they aren't alive in the same sense as us and animals).

Ripvil wrote:
By logical reasons not to eat meat, I mean reasons that are not scenario-specific. Wastage is not a logical reason because there can exist a scenario in which this would not be a problem. What if we fed them properly, they didn't add more Co2 or pollution than we would without them, and if there was enough room to feed everyone in the world with meat? In this scenario, you would still not eat meat, so waste is not your logical reasoning.


But they will never be fed properly, and as you said even if they were and we had all that extra grain, it would never get fed to the starving in third world countries, so that isn't really a 'scenario-specific' reason. In my opinion, it still counts. As do my other reasons.

Ripvil wrote:
Lol, and vegetarians live longer in general, ofcourse. But omnivores that pay attention to their diet generally live longer than the average omnivore(because the average omnivore has very little health-knowledge) as well. Switching to vegetarianism forces you to pay attention to your health, so ofcourse this will have an impact on your health. Most omnivores are very ignorant about health and diet, this does not, however, say anything about the possible health of an omnivorous diet. If a vegetarian was as ignorant about his diet as the average omnivore, I don't believe he could survive a year.


Switching to vegetarianism doesn't force you to pay attention to your health at all - why would it? Perhaps because you think meat is a miracle food packed with every single nutrient and mineral one could need?
I am a veggie and heck, even I eat really badly. I eat quite a lot of junk food but still haven't had any health problems. I can't even remember the last time I was sick. When I used to eat meat, I was always falling sick... my diet was exactly the same as now really, but back then it included meat. Coincidence? I don't think so. I've survived for several years until now, so I'm doing alright lol.

So you think that if an omnivore paid attention to their health and diet they'd be just as healthy as vegetarians? I disagree. They could live for a longer than other omnivores, sure, and maybe nearly as long as veggies, but they will still have health issues and probably some diseases too. Eating meat and 'paying attention to your health' is quite an oxymoron, really. It's like drinking alcohol when you're on anti-depressants.

Ripvil wrote:
Clearly all those problems are problems of the slaughterhouses, not logical problems with eating meat itself. You haven't given me one problem that isn't scenario-specific, other than that you don't think plants are worthy of your love.


I have given you reasons, you're just choosing to not accept them. You haven't given me logical reasons for eating meat.

The health issue regarding meat is logical, the waste issue is logical, the farms and slaughterhouse issue is logical, the law issue is logical and so on... also we're now causing a lot of species of fish to reach extinction is a logical reason, because fishing and fish consumption won't stop. None of these are scenario-specific in my opinion, but let's assume those issues were 'taken away' somehow like you said... would I eat meat then? No, because the fact that they're living, breathing beings who feel emotion and pain and should be free and not exploited by humans refrains me from eating them. I know you think eating plants is the same, but I really don't. You say those reasons are emotional, I think they are logical. That is the main reason(s), but the issues I've outlined earlier also contribute.

Edit: Also, if you are going to eat meat because you think that we should treat both plants and animals the same, I'm interested to know whether you wear fur, leather, wool etc? If you're going to eat animals, then do you also wear their fur and skin? If not, why not?


Last edited by United Kingdom horrorpunk-zombie on 12 Jul 2011, 13:39, edited 3 times in total.



12 Jul 2011, 11:19
Profile
United Kingdom

Joined: 30 Jun 2011, 09:41
Posts: 174
Post  Re: Animal Testing, Vegetarian, Vegan

CrustGrrrl wrote:
Ripvil wrote:
But why wouldn't you want to eat a baby seal, or a cat or dog? Why are they any different to a cow, pig or chicken? The difference is you've just been surrounded by the pretense that some animals should be 'meat animals' whilst others are 'cute, pet animals'. I think all animals are equal, therefore if you're going to eat a cow, then why be so revolted by the idea of eating a cat? You said it's emotionality that stops you eating a cat/seal/dog, so why doesn't emotionality stop you eating other animals like a cow/pig/chicken?

Logically, I think there is a difference between eating animals and plants. Both have evolved, yes, but one has evolved completely devoid of any feeling such as pain (as far as we know that is, I mean in terms of a CNS), emotion and so on, whilst the other has evolved with all those feelings. Isn't it blindingly obvious that plants are here to not only give us oxygen to breathe, but to give us food? After all, we can obtain all our needed nutrients and minerals from plant-based foods. Plants are our life source in every way, not animals. I think we were meant to live together with animals peacefully, I'm sure it was never 'intended' for us to devour animals, hence why humans can become very sick from living off meat alone and why meat can give us several health problems, diseases and cancers. I really don't think the human body was designed to eat meat, at least not initially anyway. Even now though, our body isn't quite used to it and meat takes a long time to digest. Sorry, I started rambling on there lol


That is my exact thought on this situation. I really like your views and the thought you put into this.


Those were my views lol, not Ripvil's! He was quoting me in his reply, but didn't do it properly ;) (scroll up more, you will see that I wrote that, not Ripvil xD)

Thank you though :)


12 Jul 2011, 11:22
Profile
User avatar

Joined: 03 Feb 2011, 10:28
Posts: 192
Post  Re: Animal Testing, Vegetarian, Vegan

horrorpunk-zombie wrote:
Cows, pigs and chickens are cute too... so why do you eat them, then? I know you said emotionality stops you eating dogs and so on, but why doesn't emotionality stop you eating a cow, pig or chicken?


Because a baby seal is cuter than a cow, pig and chicken. The Same reason emotionality doesn't stop me from eating plants... Seriously, if there was some furry plant that was cuter than a baby seal would you eat it? I wouldn't, I don't give a fuck if it doesn't have a central nervous system, that level of cuteness is not entering my stomach, lol.

horrorpunk-zombie wrote:
I don't think ALL living things are equal - plants are alive but not in the same way animals and humans are, it's silly to say they are the same. Plants do not have a beating heart, a huge network of blood vessels, blood pumping through its body, a pair of lungs, bones, cartilage, connective tissue, muscle, and so on... animals and humans do, but not plants. If you really believe that all living things are equal, then you should feel the same about- and extend it to- microorganisms. I bet you're thinking that sounds stupid, right? But microorganisms are living beings too, so do they not deserve your respect then? You wouldn't class microorganisms in the same way as animals and humans, same goes for plants.


I respect microorganisms, why wouldn't I? They took billions of years to evolve and are actually the only reason we are able to survive, like plants I think it would be the height of egotism NOT to respect them. How can the parasite not respect it's host? Like it or not, our relationship to plants and microorganisms is parasitic, without them we could not survive although they would be fine without us. I like to try to be more peacefully symbiotic, although it is impossible not to kill whatsoever, ofcourse.

You have said that you don't think all living things are equal, but you haven't given me a reason. Size? Heart? Blood? Central Nervous system? These are little more than random evolutionary baggage. Such a random way to base morality, you might as well just say "I'm only going to eat creatures who don't have the cannabinoid receptor" logically, your judgment is of the exact same calibre.


horrorpunk-zombie wrote:
You don't need the religious assumption for that at all - I'm not religious in any way. I don't think the universe was created specifically for us, but we have adapted ourselves to it. Maybe initially everything existed because of competition, but I think after that and until now it's all adaptation. [/quote

To assume that plants were put here simply for us to kill and eat, as you said, yes you do need the religious assumption.


horrorpunk-zombie wrote:
Because nowadays we know better. A very, very long time ago, people didn't know what caused thunder and lightning, so they would just say "god did it" - they would say that for everything they didn't understand. Does that mean we have to act like that now? No, of course not. Same goes for our diet.


I don't see how you got that idea from anything I said. I'm saying God didn't do it, so assuming that one thing was put here for us to murder and eat while another was put here for us to be kind to seems a little silly. If God did it, that would be the only way you could be logically correct, if this world was a testing ground and he wanted to see which of us would kill his cute creatures and which would abstain.

horrorpunk-zombie wrote:
And I wouldn't call that a religious belief, just a belief lol. Religion is based off opinions and dumbass fairytales, what you said is practically fact so it doesn't fall under 'religion' at all.


Fair enough, but according to my belief which you said is "practically fact" there is no objective good or evil because there is no omniscient being whose opinion this objectivity must be based on.


horrorpunk-zombie wrote:
But our guts haven't fully 'evolved' to digest meat. It can be digested, but it takes a long time and a lot of it ends up just staying there where it rots and causes problems and eventually bowel cancer. Surely if we are 'natural meat eaters' or 'designed to eat meat' like everyone implies, why would we get such health problems from meat?

No, you can't survive off meat alone because meat doesn't have all the required nutrients you need, and because it's plagued with a ton of saturated fat and cholosterol, not just because we began as a herbivore. If we were to just eat fruit, vegetables and other plant-based foods however, we'd be very healthy and completely fine. The evidence is all there in those scientific studies, it's been proven many times over.


Yes, all that is because we were herbivores before we were omnivores. If we were Carnivores before we were omnivores, the mirror of your present argument would be true.



horrorpunk-zombie wrote:
Not really, the assumption is of many. You said several replies back that you didn't think eating plants and animals is the same, but now you are saying it is. And I'll say it again - no, killing isn't required to maintain your own life!


Emotionally it is often different, but as I've said that is all in your mind. Objectively, ending any life equal. And I'll say it again--You don't get to decide which lives are worth considering "life"and which are worthless. You are not God. No objective fact agrees with you, so you can't really say that a plant isn't alive, because clearly it is... All you have is an opinion, once again which is of no more value than any of the other 7 billion opinions on this planet. Didn't I already say that even if everyone believed as you, that still wouldn't make it true? How many billions of Christians and Muslims are there? Does this make their beliefs true? Clearly not. Widespread delusion is the most common type.


horrorpunk-zombie wrote:
So if I went out now and killed a random person on the street for no reason whatsoever, you would not consider that evil? If I tortured someone then beat them to death, that is not evil? Killing in almost all forms is evil (not plants and microorganisms though, obviously). Thinking something is evil or not has fuck all to do with 'god'. You're not going to hell because there is no hell.


I would consider it evil, but objectivity would not. The universe does not have a moral code. You and I decide that killing is evil, which is why insane people(the real reality) and people who grew up away from our standards almost always disagree with our established beliefs, because they are completely made up, they're not based on observable fact but on what we decide we would like to be true.

Ofcourse you can think something is bad, but you have to admit it's only an opinion. For it to be a fact, God must exist and must agree with you...

horrorpunk-zombie wrote:
Survival isn't a logical reason, because you can survive without eating living creatures (again, I am not counting plants because they aren't alive in the same sense as us and animals).


Survival is a logical reason because empirically speaking, it is quite observably obvious that plants are alive... You have simply decided that it would suit your needs if you could believe they are not, so your belief is now that they are not alive and have no value so that you can continue to feel 'morally upright' in their murder.


horrorpunk-zombie wrote:
But they will never be fed properly, and as you said even if they were and we had all that extra grain, it would never get fed to the starving in third world countries, so that isn't really a 'scenario-specific' reason. In my opinion, it still counts. As do my other reasons.


It's not impossible that eventually compassionate world leaders will come into power, your assumption that it is is made simply because it suits your needs. Regardless of what you would like to believe, logically that is only a scenario-specific reason.

horrorpunk-zombie wrote:
Switching to vegetarianism doesn't force you to pay attention to your health at all - why would it? Perhaps because you think meat is a miracle food packed with every single nutrient and mineral one could need?
I am a veggie and heck, even I eat really badly. I eat quite a lot of junk food but still haven't had any health problems. I can't even remember the last time I was sick. When I used to eat meat, I was always falling sick... my diet was exactly the same as now really, but back then it included meat. Coincidence? I don't think so. I've survived for several years until now, so I'm doing alright lol.

So you think that if an omnivore paid attention to their health and diet they'd be just as healthy as vegetarians? I disagree. They could live for a longer than other omnivores, sure, and maybe nearly as long as veggies, but they will still have health issues and probably some diseases too. Eating meat and 'paying attention to your health' is quite an oxymoron, really. It's like drinking alcohol when you're on anti-depressants.


Ok... I had just thought I read about an Iron/b12 deficiency born of veganism that literally made people think they were dying and consider suicide. The only way to get to this point without veganism, apparently is to have malaria or worms. Do you not take supplements for iron and b12?

My grandpa died at 102, ate meat until the day he died. In general, vegetarians might be healthier, but your assumption that you can't be very healthy with an omnivorous diet is completely false.

horrorpunk-zombie wrote:
I have given you reasons, you're just choosing to not accept them. You haven't given me logical reasons for eating meat.

The health issue regarding meat is logical, the waste issue is logical, the farms and slaughterhouse issue is logical, the law issue is logical and so on... also we're now causing a lot of species of fish to reach extinction is a logical reason, because fishing and fish consumption won't stop. None of these are scenario-specific in my opinion, but let's assume those issues were 'taken away' somehow like you said... would I eat meat then? No, because the fact that they're living, breathing beings who feel emotion and pain and should be free and not exploited by humans refrains me from eating them. I know you think eating plants is the same, but I really don't. You say those reasons are emotional, I think they are logical. That is the main reason(s), but the issues I've outlined earlier also contribute.


Your reasons, while logical, are based on a set circumstance. Outside of this circumstance, in the real reality, they are not logical. Some species of fish are becoming extinct, obviously that's circumstantial, right? We can just stop eating those species... That's clearly not a moralistic reason to avoid eating meat altogether, right?

Plants, however, should be exploited?

It seems you are right, we have to agree to disagree because apparently we can't agree on the fundamental reality of the living-state of plants.

horrorpunk-zombie wrote:
Edit: Also, if you are going to eat meat because you think that we should treat both plants and animals the same, I'm interested to know whether you wear fur, leather, wool etc? If you're going to eat animals, then do you also wear their fur and skin? If not, why not?


No, because I don't like it. I wear mostly hemp to be honest, lol, I feel like hoyce every second of my life. And I am thankful for those honourable plants for giving their lives to keep me warm and comfortable.

_________________
"Liberty,as we all know,cannot flourish in a country that is permanently on a war footing, or even a near war footing.Permanent crisis justifies permanent control of everybody and everything by the agencies of central government."

Aldous Huxley


12 Jul 2011, 21:39
Profile
United Kingdom

Joined: 30 Jun 2011, 09:41
Posts: 174
Post  Re: Animal Testing, Vegetarian, Vegan

Ripvil wrote:

Because a baby seal is cuter than a cow, pig and chicken. The Same reason emotionality doesn't stop me from eating plants... Seriously, if there was some furry plant that was cuter than a baby seal would you eat it? I wouldn't, I don't give a fuck if it doesn't have a central nervous system, that level of cuteness is not entering my stomach, lol.


Sorry, but I still find this ridiculous. You said you think all animals are equal, so why does it matter if you think a baby seal is cuter than a cow, pig or chicken? If you're going to eat animals, then you should eat any animal if you genuinely believe they are equal. Being cute has nothing to do with it.

Ripvil wrote:
Emotionally it is often different, but as I've said that is all in your mind. Objectively, ending any life equal. And I'll say it again--You don't get to decide which lives are worth considering "life"and which are worthless. You are not God. No objective fact agrees with you, so you can't really say that a plant isn't alive, because clearly it is... All you have is an opinion, once again which is of no more value than any of the other 7 billion opinions on this planet. Didn't I already say that even if everyone believed as you, that still wouldn't make it true? How many billions of Christians and Muslims are there? Does this make their beliefs true? Clearly not. Widespread delusion is the most common type.


I never said a plant isn't alive, I said it's not alive in the same way we and animals are. Of course I know they are alive. Also I didn't suggest that just because a lot of other people would agree with me about the plant issue means I'm right.

I don't consider a plants life 'worthless', I just don't consider them alive in the same way as us that's all. Again, god has nothing to do with any of this.

Ripvil wrote:
I would consider it evil, but objectivity would not. The universe does not have a moral code. You and I decide that killing is evil, which is why insane people(the real reality) and people who grew up away from our standards almost always disagree with our established beliefs, because they are completely made up, they're not based on observable fact but on what we decide we would like to be true.

Ofcourse you can think something is bad, but you have to admit it's only an opinion. For it to be a fact, God must exist and must agree with you...


Ok I'll agree with you here, you are right that our definition of good and bad is just opinion. But I'd like to think that we can differentiate between the two (unlike the insane, like you said).

Ripvil wrote:
Survival is a logical reason because empirically speaking, it is quite observably obvious that plants are alive... You have simply decided that it would suit your needs if you could believe they are not, so your belief is now that they are not alive and have no value so that you can continue to feel 'morally upright' in their murder.


I haven't made it suit my needs. Plants are alive, but not like us or animals so I don't think that's "suiting my needs" at all. Besides, if you think that, then how about your 'cuteness' argument? Saying that an animal being cute stops you eating them is suiting your needs.

Ripvil wrote:
It's not impossible that eventually compassionate world leaders will come into power, your assumption that it is is made simply because it suits your needs. Regardless of what you would like to believe, logically that is only a scenario-specific reason.


Again, that is not suiting my needs, because I said at the end of my last reply that those reasons contribute to my vegetarianism but aren't the main reasons.

Ripvil wrote:
Ok... I had just thought I read about an Iron/b12 deficiency born of veganism that literally made people think they were dying and consider suicide. The only way to get to this point without veganism, apparently is to have malaria or worms. Do you not take supplements for iron and b12?


Sorry I don't understand, what do you mean 'born of veganism'? I don't take any supplements, I don't need them. I get plenty of iron through beans, chickpeas, spinach, etc and B12 through fortified foods such as cereals.

Ripvil wrote:
My grandpa died at 102, ate meat until the day he died. In general, vegetarians might be healthier, but your assumption that you can't be very healthy with an omnivorous diet is completely false.


You can't be very healthy. Maybe a little healthy if you are getting enough of the essential vitamins and nutrients through other foods, getting enough exercise and only eating a little meat, but you would still not be very healthy. Are you suggesting that all the scientific studies conducted were false, then? They all showed it.

Ripvil wrote:
Your reasons, while logical, are based on a set circumstance. Outside of this circumstance, in the real reality, they are not logical. Some species of fish are becoming extinct, obviously that's circumstantial, right? We can just stop eating those species... That's clearly not a moralistic reason to avoid eating meat altogether, right?

Plants, however, should be exploited?

It seems you are right, we have to agree to disagree because apparently we can't agree on the fundamental reality of the living-state of plants.


Yeah I think so lol. I know plants are alive, but I just don't think they are alive like us and other animals. I don't think that by eating them or using them for whatever other purpose that we are exploiting them at all.
I see this is going to be a never-ending debate lol, maybe we should steer it toward a different subject - animal testing or something? I'd be interested to hear (or read, rather :D) your opinions on that.


12 Jul 2011, 22:37
Profile
User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2011, 14:59
Posts: 166
Post  Re: Animal Testing, Vegetarian, Vegan

horrorpunk-zombie wrote:
CrustGrrrl wrote:
Ripvil wrote:
But why wouldn't you want to eat a baby seal, or a cat or dog? Why are they any different to a cow, pig or chicken? The difference is you've just been surrounded by the pretense that some animals should be 'meat animals' whilst others are 'cute, pet animals'. I think all animals are equal, therefore if you're going to eat a cow, then why be so revolted by the idea of eating a cat? You said it's emotionality that stops you eating a cat/seal/dog, so why doesn't emotionality stop you eating other animals like a cow/pig/chicken?

Logically, I think there is a difference between eating animals and plants. Both have evolved, yes, but one has evolved completely devoid of any feeling such as pain (as far as we know that is, I mean in terms of a CNS), emotion and so on, whilst the other has evolved with all those feelings. Isn't it blindingly obvious that plants are here to not only give us oxygen to breathe, but to give us food? After all, we can obtain all our needed nutrients and minerals from plant-based foods. Plants are our life source in every way, not animals. I think we were meant to live together with animals peacefully, I'm sure it was never 'intended' for us to devour animals, hence why humans can become very sick from living off meat alone and why meat can give us several health problems, diseases and cancers. I really don't think the human body was designed to eat meat, at least not initially anyway. Even now though, our body isn't quite used to it and meat takes a long time to digest. Sorry, I started rambling on there lol


That is my exact thought on this situation. I really like your views and the thought you put into this.


Those were my views lol, not Ripvil's! He was quoting me in his reply, but didn't do it properly ;) (scroll up more, you will see that I wrote that, not Ripvil xD)

Thank you though :)


I guess I like your views Lol.......


12 Jul 2011, 22:48
Profile
User avatar

Joined: 03 Feb 2011, 10:28
Posts: 192
Post  Re: Animal Testing, Vegetarian, Vegan

Alright but one more thing, I'm not changing my opinion of actuality to suit my needs, I realize that not eating cute creatures doesn't make me any more morally upright than anyone else, I simply do not want to eat them. I don't believe this opinion contains a single grain of truth, it's simply a choice I make with no affect. You, on the other hand have said "Plants are alive, but not like us" that is altering your perception of reality, based on nothing, to suit your needs. What if we discovered an alien life-form that, say, was silicone-based, it doesn't have blood or a central nervous system or a brain as we know it. So are we allowed to rape the shit out of them and use them for whatever suits our needs like plants because they aren't like us, or are we to act peacefully towards these aliens like we're supposed to act to animals? This thing is neither a plant or an animal, in fact being silicone-based it is more different("not alive like us") than anything we have ever known. Plants and animals, compared to this thing, are immediate relatives to each other.



Quote:
Yeah I think so lol. I know plants are alive, but I just don't think they are alive like us and other animals. I don't think that by eating them or using them for whatever other purpose that we are exploiting them at all.
I see this is going to be a never-ending debate lol, maybe we should steer it toward a different subject - animal testing or something? I'd be interested to hear (or read, rather :D) your opinions on that.


Eating/using plants isn't exploiting them..? You're literally killing them and using their corpses to suit your purposes, regardless of what they are inclined to do without you. You breed them, shoot them up with chemicals, make them grow exactly as you'd like exactly where you'd like and if they try to breed without your consent, you murder their children. That's exploitation, directly. In every way I can imagine. The only way it can not be exploitation is if you maintain that plants are unable to suffer exploitation.

I'm against animal testing, it's unnecessary, cruel and usually ineffectual. No worse than those experiments they did on people up to the 90's where they'd put an ad in a newspaper and pay some idiot to let them pump him full of chemicals and note changes, or shock them when they get questions wrong. But this brings up the question of whether or not psychological testing is immoral. Do you think it's wrong to make a mouse run a maze if it gets a piece of cheese at the end? Or is it wrong to put a person through the Asch or the Milgram experiment for pay?

_________________
"Liberty,as we all know,cannot flourish in a country that is permanently on a war footing, or even a near war footing.Permanent crisis justifies permanent control of everybody and everything by the agencies of central government."

Aldous Huxley


13 Jul 2011, 17:11
Profile
United Kingdom

Joined: 30 Jun 2011, 09:41
Posts: 174
Post  Re: Animal Testing, Vegetarian, Vegan

Ripvil wrote:
Alright but one more thing, I'm not changing my opinion of actuality to suit my needs, I realize that not eating cute creatures doesn't make me any more morally upright than anyone else, I simply do not want to eat them. I don't believe this opinion contains a single grain of truth, it's simply a choice I make with no affect. You, on the other hand have said "Plants are alive, but not like us" that is altering your perception of reality, based on nothing, to suit your needs. What if we discovered an alien life-form that, say, was silicone-based, it doesn't have blood or a central nervous system or a brain as we know it. So are we allowed to rape the shit out of them and use them for whatever suits our needs like plants because they aren't like us, or are we to act peacefully towards these aliens like we're supposed to act to animals? This thing is neither a plant or an animal, in fact being silicone-based it is more different("not alive like us") than anything we have ever known. Plants and animals, compared to this thing, are immediate relatives to each other.

Eating/using plants isn't exploiting them..? You're literally killing them and using their corpses to suit your purposes, regardless of what they are inclined to do without you. You breed them, shoot them up with chemicals, make them grow exactly as you'd like exactly where you'd like and if they try to breed without your consent, you murder their children. That's exploitation, directly. In every way I can imagine. The only way it can not be exploitation is if you maintain that plants are unable to suffer exploitation.


I still think that's suiting your needs. You may choose not to eat them, but that's based on your thinking that they're cute. Yet, simultaneously, you choose to eat a cow because they're not 'as cute'. To me, that is suiting your needs to justify eating one animal but not another.

Ok one last question before we fully move on; you believe that because plants are 'exploited', that it's ok to do it to animals because they're both the same, right? So then why do you not exploit and hurt human beings too? They're the same as plants and animals from what you said, so what stops you harming another human being?

Anyway let's move on now..

Ripvil wrote:
I'm against animal testing, it's unnecessary, cruel and usually ineffectual. No worse than those experiments they did on people up to the 90's where they'd put an ad in a newspaper and pay some idiot to let them pump him full of chemicals and note changes, or shock them when they get questions wrong. But this brings up the question of whether or not psychological testing is immoral. Do you think it's wrong to make a mouse run a maze if it gets a piece of cheese at the end? Or is it wrong to put a person through the Asch or the Milgram experiment for pay?


I'm glad we agree on the animal testing issue.

I think that animal tests are worse than paying someone to be a test subject. After all, the person is volunteering to do it, they're not being held down and forced to have these things pumped into them or whatever, they've chosen to do it. Animals haven't chosen to be tested on so that's far more cruel in my opinion.

I don't think animals should be used in psychology experiments at all, that's just stupid. What can putting animals through psychology tests do to help us understand human psychology? And if it's done to study animal psychology... why? It's irrelevant. Furthermore, animal psychology experiments are just as cruel as animal tests involving chemicals and other toxic substances. Wasn't there one with a monkey where the psychologist took him away from his mother to see how he would react? Something like that... I can't remember it fully, but that was just awful and unnecessary.

And again, with human psychology experiments the people have chosen to be a part of the study. I don't think Milgram's obedience to authority experiment itself was immoral, the learner wasn't getting real shocks so what's the problem? What I find immoral about it is that the teachers continued to deliver the 'shocks' even though they genuinely believed they were causing harm (and even death) to the learner. That experiment is very interesting actually.


13 Jul 2011, 19:58
Profile
User avatar

Joined: 03 Feb 2011, 10:28
Posts: 192
Post  Re: Animal Testing, Vegetarian, Vegan

I haven't justified my actions, though, not in the least. I have admitted, actually, that there is no justification.

I don't think it's ok to exploit anything. I think it's ok to end a life to sustain your own or that of another in your care, so long as that being has had a chance to live a prosperous life. Cannibalism comes with some problems, so I don't support it. If it was healthy, however, I would support anyone who wanted to eat the rich since they have had a chance to live a humanly prosperous life. I wouldn't eat people myself, however, because I don't want to. I don't agree with exploiting people as in making their lives unpleasant, ending a life to serve a moral purpose is not nearly so bad, in my opinion, as torture.

As always, here's Nietzsche to bring reason. "One has observed life poorly, if one has not also witnessed the hand that in a considerate manner—kills."


Humans agree to undergo those experiments, but most humans are utterly imbecilic, they agree out of ignorance more often than not and otherwise it is due to nihilism. Which means we tricked emotionally/mentally unstable people into letting us do tests on them which may or may not have negative effects. That, in my opinion, is immoral. These people are most often not in the right mindset to be making decisions that could drastically shorten their lives, and those who are do it only because they are so poor. That, directly, is exploiting that persons standard of living to force him into your experiments. Can this be considered agreeing any more than if you open a mouses cage and he runs into your test area to get the cheese you've placed there?

And the Milgram and Asch experiments have caused emotional stress to dozens of people. Can you imagine what it feels like to have it proven that you're an imbecilic sheep? The 'learner' doesn't get real shocks, but the 'teacher' really goes through the emotional trauma of having delivered those shocks, right up until they become fatal. The fact that no one actually dies doesn't effect the mental/emotional stress involved. The Milgram, I'd say, is one of the most unkind experiments to put the average person through. Not to say that I disagree with performing this experiment, but as with everything else, it has it's negative effects.

Discovering how animals learn and grow helps us learn more about our minds, undeniably. There are three main layers in the human brain; the stem(reptilian brain) which evolved in the first reptiles and regulates our natural body functions and our compulsions and rigid beliefs, territoriality and submission to authority come from this layer. The next part is known as the Limbic or the mammalian brain, which was evolved in the early mammals. This is the source of our value judgments which we apply unwittingly to everything we experience and also where we record memories of stimuli that produce positive and negative effects. The neocortex was evolved in early primates, but culminated only in humans with the dual cerebral hemispheres. The neocortex is, ofcourse, responsible for abstract thought, imagination, the evolutions of language and culture. The only part of the human mind we can learn nothing about from animals is the fully-evolved neocortex. And studying a reptile to learn about the brain stem is a lot more effective than trying to study the human brain stem because our brain is a veritable web of neuro-connections, it is impossible to section off the reptilian brain and test it individually. So we study reptiles to learn about the stem, simple mammals to learn about the Limbic, and humans to learn about the neocortex. Without these studies on animals, we would know very little of what is known about the evolution of the human brain as well as evolution in general.

_________________
"Liberty,as we all know,cannot flourish in a country that is permanently on a war footing, or even a near war footing.Permanent crisis justifies permanent control of everybody and everything by the agencies of central government."

Aldous Huxley


15 Jul 2011, 18:51
Profile
United Kingdom

Joined: 30 Jun 2011, 09:41
Posts: 174
Post  Re: Animal Testing, Vegetarian, Vegan

Ripvil wrote:
Humans agree to undergo those experiments, but most humans are utterly imbecilic, they agree out of ignorance more often than not and otherwise it is due to nihilism. Which means we tricked emotionally/mentally unstable people into letting us do tests on them which may or may not have negative effects. That, in my opinion, is immoral. These people are most often not in the right mindset to be making decisions that could drastically shorten their lives, and those who are do it only because they are so poor. That, directly, is exploiting that persons standard of living to force him into your experiments. Can this be considered agreeing any more than if you open a mouses cage and he runs into your test area to get the cheese you've placed there?


I still don't think being imbecilic or ignorant excuses the fact that they agreed to participate. If there was any doubt in their minds, then they don't have to do it... no one is forcing them. I don't think it is immoral or exploitative in the least. It's far more immoral, in my opinion, to subject animals to these tests who have no say in whether they want to be experimented on or not - forcing anyone to do anything without their consent is immoral. Anyway, volunteering doesn't mean you have to be injected with things or whatever, nowadays they will just take a tissue sample from you and use that.

Ripvil wrote:
And the Milgram and Asch experiments have caused emotional stress to dozens of people. Can you imagine what it feels like to have it proven that you're an imbecilic sheep? The 'learner' doesn't get real shocks, but the 'teacher' really goes through the emotional trauma of having delivered those shocks, right up until they become fatal. The fact that no one actually dies doesn't effect the mental/emotional stress involved. The Milgram, I'd say, is one of the most unkind experiments to put the average person through. Not to say that I disagree with performing this experiment, but as with everything else, it has it's negative effects.


I disagree. Again, like with human volunteers, no one was forcing the teacher to continue delivering those shocks. The shouts and cries of the learner were fully audible to the teacher, but they still decided to continue regardless... if they felt any mental/emotional stress afterward then it's their own fault; they could've just said "no, I'm not going to keep shocking him", but they didn't did they? They kept going and were willing to even deliver the 'fatal' shock... Of course I understand that they would be stressed, and I've read about some of the volunteers who are still 'emotionally scarred' from the experiment even now, but as I said it's really their own fault. Anyway, this is kinda going off topic because we're meant to be talking about animal testing... not human psychology experiments :P

Ripvil wrote:
Discovering how animals learn and grow helps us learn more about our minds, undeniably. There are three main layers in the human brain; the stem(reptilian brain) which evolved in the first reptiles and regulates our natural body functions and our compulsions and rigid beliefs, territoriality and submission to authority come from this layer. The next part is known as the Limbic or the mammalian brain, which was evolved in the early mammals. This is the source of our value judgments which we apply unwittingly to everything we experience and also where we record memories of stimuli that produce positive and negative effects. The neocortex was evolved in early primates, but culminated only in humans with the dual cerebral hemispheres. The neocortex is, ofcourse, responsible for abstract thought, imagination, the evolutions of language and culture. The only part of the human mind we can learn nothing about from animals is the fully-evolved neocortex. And studying a reptile to learn about the brain stem is a lot more effective than trying to study the human brain stem because our brain is a veritable web of neuro-connections, it is impossible to section off the reptilian brain and test it individually. So we study reptiles to learn about the stem, simple mammals to learn about the Limbic, and humans to learn about the neocortex. Without these studies on animals, we would know very little of what is known about the evolution of the human brain as well as evolution in general.


To be fair I don't know much about the brain so I can't contribute much here, but I've always thought using animals to study anything about humans and human health is stupid, and I still think so. Of course I know we have learnt things through the study of animals, but I don't believe that these things would never have been learnt had we not used animal experimentation. In fact, they probably would have been found out a lot sooner.


15 Jul 2011, 20:46
Profile
User avatar

Joined: 03 Feb 2011, 10:28
Posts: 192
Post  Re: Animal Testing, Vegetarian, Vegan

horrorpunk-zombie wrote:
I still don't think being imbecilic or ignorant excuses the fact that they agreed to participate. If there was any doubt in their minds, then they don't have to do it... no one is forcing them. I don't think it is immoral or exploitative in the least. It's far more immoral, in my opinion, to subject animals to these tests who have no say in whether they want to be experimented on or not - forcing anyone to do anything without their consent is immoral. Anyway, volunteering doesn't mean you have to be injected with things or whatever, nowadays they will just take a tissue sample from you and use that.


You don't think preying on someone's ignorance to subject them to questionable testing is exploitation? If a child, or a person with a mental disability agreed would that make it ok to put them through these tests? Not in my opinion, and in my opinion most people are just as psychologically infantile as a mentally handicapped person. And then there's the poor thing, if the only reason you're doing it is because you wouldn't be able to eat otherwise... that's exploitation. If we went to a third-world country looking for volunteers to pump full of chems and told them we'd give them a warm meal if they agreed, you don't think that would be exploitation? Poor Americans are just as capable of being exploited as are poor brown people, you know.


horrorpunk-zombie wrote:
I disagree. Again, like with human volunteers, no one was forcing the teacher to continue delivering those shocks. The shouts and cries of the learner were fully audible to the teacher, but they still decided to continue regardless... if they felt any mental/emotional stress afterward then it's their own fault; they could've just said "no, I'm not going to keep shocking him", but they didn't did they? They kept going and were willing to even deliver the 'fatal' shock... Of course I understand that they would be stressed, and I've read about some of the volunteers who are still 'emotionally scarred' from the experiment even now, but as I said it's really their own fault. Anyway, this is kinda going off topic because we're meant to be talking about animal testing... not human psychology experiments :P


You're letting your ego get away from you, the human is just another animal :D. Do you know what the point of the Milgram is? It isn't to detect personal problems, but societal problems. The lives these people have led, Western 'education' not being the least important factor, has convinced them that the only thing they can do of worth is to bow to authority, so when the guy in the white lab coat tells them to do something, they don't question him or falter in the least. Such a society was created on purpose, you have only to look at the travesty we call a public education system to see that. A life of conditioning lead these people to make the choices they did during the Milgram, the fact that they already went through years of conditioning, in my opinion, is not an excuse for subjecting them to emotional trauma.


horrorpunk-zombie wrote:
To be fair I don't know much about the brain so I can't contribute much here, but I've always thought using animals to study anything about humans and human health is stupid, and I still think so. Of course I know we have learnt things through the study of animals, but I don't believe that these things would never have been learnt had we not used animal experimentation. In fact, they probably would have been found out a lot sooner.


Fair enough, you don't know much about the human brain. But in that case, making that last claim was probably a bad idea because you could not be any more wrong. As I've said, it's impossible to section off the human brain stem or Limbic from the rest of the brain, meaning that we wouldn't know what these parts of the brain are used for without animal testing, and this knowledge has helped us develop treatment for dozens of mental illnesses and neuroses.

Our brains form a million new neural connections every second, we have something like 100 billion of them, and like 10 trillion synapses(this means that your brain is constantly communicating with every part of itself, meaning you can find electrical and chemical signals that belong to the Limbic in every other part of the human brain, which means you can't figure out where it came from without sorting through literally trillions of connections, which we are nowhere near being able to accomplish.) So no, nothing about the human brain would have been found out sooner without animal testing, we would still not know anything about the Stem/Limbic, in fact.

_________________
"Liberty,as we all know,cannot flourish in a country that is permanently on a war footing, or even a near war footing.Permanent crisis justifies permanent control of everybody and everything by the agencies of central government."

Aldous Huxley


17 Jul 2011, 20:58
Profile
United Kingdom

Joined: 30 Jun 2011, 09:41
Posts: 174
Post  Re: Animal Testing, Vegetarian, Vegan

Ripvil wrote:
You don't think preying on someone's ignorance to subject them to questionable testing is exploitation? If a child, or a person with a mental disability agreed would that make it ok to put them through these tests? Not in my opinion, and in my opinion most people are just as psychologically infantile as a mentally handicapped person. And then there's the poor thing, if the only reason you're doing it is because you wouldn't be able to eat otherwise... that's exploitation. If we went to a third-world country looking for volunteers to pump full of chems and told them we'd give them a warm meal if they agreed, you don't think that would be exploitation? Poor Americans are just as capable of being exploited as are poor brown people, you know.


I don't think it's "preying on someone's ignorance" though. Everything is fully explained to them, they know exactly what they're getting themselves into... if they still decide to go ahead then it's not exactly ignorance. No I don't think it's ok to put a child or a person with a mental disability through those kinds of tests at all, but they're very different to adults who aren't suffering from a mental disorder. I'm sure they are checked for all of this before being experimented on. I agree about the poor thing.. actually this reminds me of something at my university - a few people asked for volunteers for an experiment they were doing, and said whoever 'did the best' (whatever that means?) gets £500, and suddenly people were interested. I guess luring people with money isn't very fair and is quite exploitative, yes. But most people won't take part in something like that for free! And yes, going to a third-world country for volunteers is exploitation, and I know that anyone else is just as susceptible.. I never said they weren't?

Ripvil wrote:
You're letting your ego get away from you, the human is just another animal :D. Do you know what the point of the Milgram is? It isn't to detect personal problems, but societal problems. The lives these people have led, Western 'education' not being the least important factor, has convinced them that the only thing they can do of worth is to bow to authority, so when the guy in the white lab coat tells them to do something, they don't question him or falter in the least. Such a society was created on purpose, you have only to look at the travesty we call a public education system to see that. A life of conditioning lead these people to make the choices they did during the Milgram, the fact that they already went through years of conditioning, in my opinion, is not an excuse for subjecting them to emotional trauma.


I know humans are animals too, we're probably the worst kind as well.. but I meant non-human animals :P That's what I assumed this thread was about anyway.

Well the experiment was called "obedience to authority", right? Yeah I know what it was about, but I still think that if any of the volunteers were emotionally traumatised by it, it was really their own fault. From the accounts I've read of the volunteers, they didn't even mention anything about being obedient to authority, but were more concerned about 'how far they could go with hurting someone else'. So really they could have said "no, I won't carry on"... But yes I completely agree with you about society being purposely created in this way.

Ripvil wrote:
Fair enough, you don't know much about the human brain. But in that case, making that last claim was probably a bad idea because you could not be any more wrong. As I've said, it's impossible to section off the human brain stem or Limbic from the rest of the brain, meaning that we wouldn't know what these parts of the brain are used for without animal testing, and this knowledge has helped us develop treatment for dozens of mental illnesses and neuroses.

Our brains form a million new neural connections every second, we have something like 100 billion of them, and like 10 trillion synapses(this means that your brain is constantly communicating with every part of itself, meaning you can find electrical and chemical signals that belong to the Limbic in every other part of the human brain, which means you can't figure out where it came from without sorting through literally trillions of connections, which we are nowhere near being able to accomplish.) So no, nothing about the human brain would have been found out sooner without animal testing, we would still not know anything about the Stem/Limbic, in fact.


I still stick by my last claim :P. I'd have to research about animal testing in regards to the brain to argue back with you, but I think my last 'claim' definitely applies elsewhere in any case!


18 Jul 2011, 11:43
Profile
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3



Search for:
Jump to:  


 

**LOGIN

** 
Username:
 
Password:
 
 
Remember me  

Or click here to register a new account

 

LAST POSTS

 
• Return To Fortress Europe: The Big Shiny Prison Vol 3 [PDF]
• Re: Hi, this is Stain from Albacete, Spain.
• Re: Кто может проконсультировать?
• Re: PUREVIL DC Punk early 80's
• Re: Preved. Your answer is machless... :)
• Re: 17/04 Elway + Joe McMahon (Smoke Or Fire) @Winston Amsterdam
• Re: Hi from France
• Re: Punk survey
• Re: Lay It On The Line - The Black Museum
• Re: No Gods No Masters buyer review
• No Gods No Masters buyer review
• Re: Preved. Your answer is machless... :)
• Re: punk surfing
• Re: Any skins/punks from Kansas City Missouri area?




You will need a software like WINRAR to open the albums you download here.

* * *


Add us to your friends !

* * *



* * *


Use this image to link to us !



 

MOST POPULAR SEARCH TERMS

 
template->_php_include(): File ./popsearch.php does not exist or is empty


 

LAST SEARCH FOR:

 
 • Besancon • Pöblers united • Strength In Numbers • Amparanoia • Skin Deep - The Burial • Groovie Ghoulies 99 • 2 Minuta Mrznje • Kingdom the rage that guides • Trocki • Guts Pie Earshot • The business rio • New Dawn Fades • Fuera del sektor • Genocide Superstars • The Maytones • Risen • Murphys Law The Best Of Times • Mu330 • Crisis Ends • Edith Nylon • Disidencia • Garçons • Nosotros Decimos No • Scarface Ska • Nofx war • The Liberators • Death Threat Nowhere Fast • Jugend • Eddie Spaghetti The Sauce • Michale Graves - Demos Live Cuts Vol. Iv • Koliko • Los Pies Negros • Dead Kennedys Plastic Surgery Disasters • Brother Inferior ?– Blasphemy Treason • Cxdxrx • 99 bottles • Fine young firecrackers  • Lady -saw • Kategorie C • Desvirgheitors • Backyard Babies ? Backyard Babies -2008 • Aftermath uk • Pledge • Kaaos -kasetti ** ** 8=8 • Jesuseater • Societic Death Slaughter • Hard Skin • The Flys • The Tostones • Raptus • Todays The Day • Total Terror • The haggis • The Ska Album •  music ich bin ein punk • The kids • The Broadways • Agnostic Front Warriors • Narcissus - crave collapse • Ni o zombi • Port  • Metro st • Berurier Noir Porcherie • The Whores • The Oppressed Fatal Blow • World/inferno Friendship Society • Poison Idea Discografia • 7 Seconds Walk Together Rock Together • Anti -flag - die for your government • Tronic • Leather bristles survivors sick boys • Deathcore • Natty combo • Defensa Y Justicia • G.g.allin • Instinct • Only Living Witness • Mash -up • The Potato 5 • Stormcrow • Vent • Enraged • Sample • Arsonists • Varning • Stupenda jones • The Jam Gold • Accords • Hortense Ellis • Raymonde Et Les Blancs Becs • Oxnard • Sex pistols • Les Collabos - Complete Discography (1983-85) - 2010 - Punk • Pinstripes • Chasing Hamburg • Dry amp; heavy • Suicide machines least worst of • Jornada Del Caos • New Christs • Tributo A Madness • La theorie du boxon • Morgue • The Knob • Skacha • Rock`n roll • I Love Ufo • Purple • Salsa • Geraniüm • La rona • Burnt • Nadie • Sonny moore • Deadly Games Varukers • Tampere Ss - Kuollut • Tampere Ss - Kuollut • Skank to • Tampere Ss - Kuollut • Tampere Ss - Kuollut • Alien Sex Fiend



* NO FILES ARE HOSTED ON OUR SERVERS *
* The links are either posted by a member of our site or a robot *
* For copyright issues, either contact the original uploader OR the website where the physical file is hosted. *
* PunkAndSkins.com is an index of files crawled by spider bots, just like google. *
* We can't moderate everything posted on this site. Because something was posted by a robot doesn't means we support the band and their ideas. We are sorry if you found something that shouldn't be here. *
Forum software by PhpBB.com T-Shirt Printing