PDA

View Full Version : Animal Rights


Vampire
08-30-2006, 02:37 PM
I am a BIG believer in animal rights, so I was wondering can I see some of your views and can you answer a few questions please?

some infomation I found...

The british are said to be fond of animals. For many of them a dog or cat is part of the family and must be well looked after.

Large sums of money are spent on veterinary bills and pet food. A trip to a supermarket will reveal whole aisles dedicated to our animal friends.

However, in the same supermarket, you can find battery chickens which have been factory farmed in cramped conditions and injected with antibiotics to contain disease, growth hormones to fatten them for maket abd tranquillizers to stop them from going mad.

Aware of the conditions in their treatment of animals and the risks of mad cow disease, many british people are turning to vegetarian diets. Some have joined animal rights groups and have taken part in protests against the meat trade, especially the export of live animals for slaughter overseas.

The questions...

1: Many vegitarians believe that factory farming is a cruel and unnecessary practise and that our diets would be healither if we ate less meat.
Do you agree?

2: Animal rights protesters argue that the export of live animals for slaughter in uncivilized and should be prohibited under international law.
Do you agree?

3: "Keeping animals in zoo and circuses to entertain human-beings is slefish and inhumane." Do you agree?

4: Bullfighting, fox-hunting and whale-hunting are part of some countries' traditions. Do you think that Spain, England and Japan have a right to continue these traditions?

5: "The british spend far to much money on household pets. They would do better to have fewer cats and dogs and to use the money to help the poor and hungary people." What do you think?

6: Would you ever wear fur or leather?

7: Is it right to use animals for medical research or to test cosmetics?

My answers...

1: Many vegitarians believe that factory farming is a cruel and unnecessary practise and that our diets would be healither if we ate less meat.
Do you agree?
Yes as I would eat more vegetables and less fat meat.
2: Animal rights protesters argue that the export of live animals for slaughter in uncivilized and should be prohibited under international law.
Do you agree?
No, although I wish it could, jails would overflow and protests would wreck our world.
3: "Keeping animals in zoo and circuses to entertain human-beings is slefish and inhumane." Do you agree?
I agree about animala in a zoo as some animals need to live in captivity and would not survive out in the wild on their own, plus some are going extinct(sp). Circuses I do not agree, its cruel and painful for the nimal when they tame them.
4: Bullfighting, fox-hunting and whale-hunting are part of some countries' traditions. Do you think that Spain, England and Japan have a right to continue these traditions?
I believe it should be all illegal, plus its not nice to make humans use violence for entertainment.
5: "The british spend far to much money on household pets. They would do better to have fewer cats and dogs and to use the money to help the poor and hungary people." What do you think?
Thier government should stop this, I don't believe its our responsiblity that we should care for them.
6: Would you ever wear fur or leather?
No, knowing that the product your wearing was a living breathing, feeling entity with a purpose in this world.
7: Is it right to use animals for medical research or to test cosmetics?
No, why risk and innocent life, I believe they should use humans that have been put in jail on life sentences, anyway its not like the animal is going to buy lipstick or headache pills, they should test it on the consumer species but one that are guilty of a life thretening sentence.

Please keep your comments smart, don't answer them blunty as this is a very strong topic I would like to discuss and see how other people of the world thing.

Thank you for your time.
Vamp~

RouteMaster
08-31-2006, 09:19 AM
1: Many vegitarians believe that factory farming is a cruel and unnecessary practise and that our diets would be healither if we ate less meat. Do you agree?
Well yes, factory farming is cruel I agree there. I disagree with the second point. In the UK the papers have recently run a number of stories highlighting the growing number of cases of anemia, especially among teenage girls. The answer they say is to eat more meat to build up protein levels.

2: Animal rights protesters argue that the export of live animals for slaughter is uncivilized and should be prohibited under international law.
Do you agree?
During export the carcus fill begin decay even if refridgerated. When it arrives at its destination it isn't as frsh and will not make as much money when sold. Personally I do not agree with live transport but I cannot see it being banned under international law

3: "Keeping animals in zoos and circuses to entertain human-beings is selfish and inhumane." Do you agree?
That depends, circuses are mainly about exploitation, getting animals to perform. Zoos let visitors view animals in a re-creation of their natural habitat and are quite often the leading voice in conservation projects, donating vast sums of money.

4: Bullfighting, fox-hunting and whale-hunting are part of some countries' traditions. Do you think that Spain, England and Japan have a right to continue these traditions?
Well England has banned fox-hunting, but bull fighting and whale-hunting are still popular in Spain and Japan. I don't agree with them but they do have an important place in each society.

5: "The British spend far to much money on household pets. They would do better to have fewer cats and dogs and to use the money to help the poor and hungry people." What do you think?
Yes that sounds fair, but I wouldn't want to be the person trying to get across that message to pet lovers in the United Kingdom, expect a frosty reception.

6: Would you ever wear fur or leather?
Maybe, animal skins have always been used as a way to keep warm and make clothes. But commercial fur and leather often raise animals just to be skinned and I think that's wrong. If the animal has died though I don't think there should be a problem with using its skin then.

7: Is it right to use animals for medical research or to test cosmetics?
I think animals should be used in medical research to help test groundbreaking new drugs to fight cancers and other such diseases. But cosmetics are different. They won't save lives or erradicate disease so I say let people be the test.


I'm not an animal rights campainer but I do think they raise valid concerns over the exploitation of animals.

DratiniLover
08-31-2006, 10:52 AM
I'm a believer in animal rights too...

Kenny_C.002
08-31-2006, 03:28 PM
1: Many vegitarians believe that factory farming is a cruel and unnecessary practise and that our diets would be healither if we ate less meat.
Do you agree?

Now recall that there are two sides to each story. In this case, we're hearing the story from just the side of places such as greenpeace (which really isn't known for their accuracy here). So while they may be saying some truth in factory farming, they're showing either specific cases of bad farming, or overexaggerating the conditions. Certainly the Brazilian chicken farms are well-polished and actually are very good in terms of animal rights and the treatment of their chicken. Antibiotics obviously are still used for immunity purposes, but otherwise it's pretty much "all good".

For the second part of the statment: yes, most people should eat less meat. That doesn't include people who already eat a lot of vegetables already and eat little meat to begin with. Vegetarians need a very strict regimen in diet to just get all the essential nurtrients.

2: Animal rights protesters argue that the export of live animals for slaughter in uncivilized and should be prohibited under international law.
Do you agree?

Understand that live transport is rarely over extremely long distances. Generally speaking, it's simply much cleaner for the animals to be packaged (i.e. dead) before shipping is usually the best solution. However, a number of people will argue that live still has better freshness and taste. As of now, some live transport of animals do eem inhumaine, thus rooting those would be enough. And for short-distance live shipping, pretty much anything goes anyway.

3: "Keeping animals in zoo and circuses to entertain human-beings is slefish [sic] and inhumane." Do you agree?

The zoo's function is not entertainment but rather for educational purposes. Generally the zoo follows strict regiments to keep the animals in the zoo happy and healthy. The problem is not in the zoo at all. As for the circus, we don't actually know how things work in there, as mostly we only know of such things in films and what not and not really experience it live (and recall that circuses are rare to nonexistent nowadays). Obviously it would depend on how the circus works and how they treat the animals.

4: Bullfighting, fox-hunting and whale-hunting are part of some countries' traditions. Do you think that Spain, England and Japan have a right to continue these traditions?

This is a difficult one, should tradition prevail over the preservation of wildlife? I think we should just follow what the ecologists are saying. Basically they can tell when a tradition is getting too dangerous for a species, so we can always just go their way. As for bull fighting, I'd have to say that they probably still have the right to do it, but in a limited case-by-case scenerio.

5: "The british spend far to much money on household pets. They would do better to have fewer cats and dogs and to use the money to help the poor and hungary [sic] people." What do you think?

This said to all industrial countries. And the answer is that there is no simple answer. Simply speaking, by decreasing spending on pets, you're decreasing the standard of living of the people, just to support the weaker countries. See the problem?

6: Would you ever wear fur or leather?

Probably faux myself, but leather these days come from animals that are to be dead in the first place anyway (i.e. food). As for fur and "exotic leather", really to catch them just for skinning them is obviously not a very smart way of doing things, but we can always just grow them in farms and what not, which can be a solution.

7: Is it right to use animals for medical research or to test cosmetics?

Short answer: Medical research, yes. Cosmetics, it depends.

Orange_Flaaffy
08-31-2006, 03:55 PM
Well, all these questions first off are sort of unfair to have to answer as they are presented now.

As my many college english classes would say, they show a clear bias toward one veiwpoint acting as though if the reader does not answer in kind they are an unfeeling, unheathly, meat eating animal hater.

I have to say that while some farms are mean to animals before they killed there are also tousands of good farm areas like my home town that have cage free chickens and cows that have the run of the grassy plains and woods for well over 13 arces. There are many laws govering how many cows may be in a area of land at one time, so anyone overcrowding them is breaking the law to begin with...
And yes, I eat meat, but that does not mean I do not care for animals overall :)

Neo Emolga
08-31-2006, 04:57 PM
1: Many vegetarians believe that factory farming is a cruel and unnecessary practice and that our diets would be healthier if we ate less meat.
Do you agree?

No, thatís not necessarily true. Meats contain proteins that our bodies need, as well as other nutrients that our bodies need that you canít get from eating vegetables. However, I think what needs to be examined are the practices for raising farm animals in mass amounts, and the remedy here could be that regulation needs to be tighter and ruled with an iron fist.

However, yes, meats do have fats and we would be better off with less of those. But, consider the fact that humans are still omnivores, and our diets are intended to have elements of both vegetables and meats.

2: Animal rights protesters argue that the export of live animals for slaughter is uncivilized and should be prohibited under international law.
Do you agree?

Again, the practices that are involved is the problem here, itís not the fact that its being done. The exportation of live animals can be civilized and humane but very often its not when it should be. The problem is some foreign countries arenít animal right conscious as other countries are, very often cramming massive amounts of animals into a very tight space, which often results in many casualties occurring.

Prohibited, no. Tighter regulation and more humane practices, yes.

3: "Keeping animals in zoo and circuses to entertain human-beings is selfish and inhumane." Do you agree?

Some animals need extra care to survive, and when fellow members of the same species can not offer that, then people need to step in and take the role that they canít. Not to mention, zoos often have onsite personnel in case the animal needs help. And yet, itís not uncommon for zoos to release some of their animals back into the wild when they are capable of living on their own. Also, most (most, not all) zoos are responsible and give their animals the right diet, a place to live, as well as being able to supply their medical needs. I donít have a problem with this.

Circuses, on the other hand, are just stupid. Thereís absolutely no reason why an animal should be forced into doing things that nature never intended for them to do. Second, the means in which circuses use to train animals by shocking them and starving them is nothing short of diabolic, thereís no other word for it.

4: Bullfighting, fox-hunting and whale-hunting are part of some countries' traditions. Do you think that Spain, England and Japan have a right to continue these traditions?

My theory is, what was once a suggestion becomes a tradition when itís practiced again and again. Hunting, in all forms, should be completely banned. Originally, hunting was performed to gather food. Today, hunting is mainly for sport, but in this same light, we donít treat murder and massacres at sport and neither should we consider hunting to be a sport.

Spain, England, and Japan can start putting more focus on real sports, like baseball, soccer, tennis, and the like. They donít need to murder animals for entertainment.

5: "The British spend far too much money on household pets. They would do better to have fewer cats and dogs and to use the money to help the poor and hungry people." What do you think?

Problem is there will always be poor and hungry people, and if not in Great Britain, then it will be in some other country. Having an animal as a pet is not bad, anyone who gives Fido or Rover fifteen chew toys, a sponge bath every other day and even their own dress-up clothing is nothing short of unnecessary and wasteful.

6: Would you ever wear fur or leather?

Fur, no. HoweverÖ hate to say it, but Iím wearing leather even as we speak (belt).

Again, itís a matter of humane reasoning. Even the native Americans needed animal products to live, but they used them thoroughly and werenít wasteful about it. If the animal is already dead, then whatís the problem with it, itís just like a human giving up internal organs for those who need transplants. However, cramming many animals into tight cages and boxes just to be mindlessly slaughtered is the real issue here.

7: Is it right to use animals for medical research or to test cosmetics?

Medical research, yes. Now before you start throwing stones at me, consider the fact that many diseases have been cured much faster through animal testing. If people can get one step closer to finding the cure for AIDS or cancer with the sacrifice of a few lab rats, then by all means, letís go for it. Again, humane treatment needs to be addressed here as well. Letís not do the ďhey, letís give this rabbit this funky chemical concoction we came up with just to see what happensĒ kind of garbage.

CosmeticsÖ we donít need that nonsense. We know enough if a cosmetic is going to have infectious results, and if the cosmetics in question are so bad enough to the point that weíre thinking animals can get infections because of itÖ then what the hell are we doing creating those in the first place?

Even so, I think we can officially kill all needs for all further cosmetics testing. There are plenty of lipsticks, blushes and powdery nonsense on the market already, we donít need more of it. Take what we have already and base it off of that.

Kenny_C.002
08-31-2006, 05:09 PM
Just an addition to Neo's posts:

1. Actually, meats are not necessary for humans at all. Again, it's just a matter of eating the right vegetable proteins and what not for balancing purposes. There's a misconception that only beans and meats have protein, which is obviously false. Corn has most of the amino acids we need for production of our own proteins.

As for fats, you actually still need to consume a certain amount of fats to begin with (along with cholesterol, of course), generally these are just more plentiful in meats, but still they should not be neglected and left out of the diet.

3. I'm not sure how you think of circuses, but generally speaking the places where the animals perform (i.e. live dolphin performances, etc.) use a conditioning method that is based off rewards rather than punishment. In short, circuses can probably be using the same methods to train their animals, and I don't really see a problem with that.

6. There is always the option of farming animals like we do with cattle. The question is whether or not people think that farming animals for fur should equate to farming animals for food. That's the real question.

7. I wrote "it depends" on the cosmetics department because the line between medical research and cosmetic research is now blurring. There's sometimes heavy exchange between both sides. I know for a fact that one of the drugs we used to treat sleeping sickness is actually a cosmetic product, and thus if cosmetic research didn't happen, we wouldn't have had a powerful weapon against the deady sleeping sickness.

Neo Emolga
08-31-2006, 05:35 PM
Just an addition to Neo's posts:

1. Actually, meats are not necessary for humans at all. Again, it's just a matter of eating the right vegetable proteins and what not for balancing purposes. There's a misconception that only beans and meats have protein, which is obviously false. Corn has most of the amino acids we need for production of our own proteins.

As for fats, you actually still need to consume a certain amount of fats to begin with (along with cholesterol, of course), generally these are just more plentiful in meats, but still they should not be neglected and left out of the diet.

If we were meant to be herbivores, we would only have molars and bicuspids in our mouths for grinding down plants (such as a horseís teeth), and not the incisors and canines that we do have. Also, for thousands of years, humans have eaten meats as part of our normal diet. It really shouldnít come as a surprise that humans would be somewhat reluctant to change this natural lifestyle after so many years.

3. I'm not sure how you think of circuses, but generally speaking the places where the animals perform (i.e. live dolphin performances, etc.) use a conditioning method that is based off rewards rather than punishment. In short, circuses can probably be using the same methods to train their animals, and I don't really see a problem with that.

This all ties with the means of how Operant and Classical Conditioning is used. Train an animal by giving them a reward for doing it correctly. Don't train an animal by punishing and inflicting physical pain on it when it simply doesn't even know what humans are trying to make it do.

And yes, not every circus does this.

6. There is always the option of farming animals like we do with cattle. The question is whether or not people think that farming animals for fur should equate to farming animals for food. That's the real question.

Take the cattle, and why not farm it for both food and its skin at the same time? The matter here is not wasting something that can be used as something else, as well as minimizing animal casualties.

7. I wrote "it depends" on the cosmetics department because the line between medical research and cosmetic research is now blurring. There's sometimes heavy exchange between both sides. I know for a fact that one of the drugs we used to treat sleeping sickness is actually a cosmetic product, and thus if cosmetic research didn't happen, we wouldn't have had a powerful weapon against the deady sleeping sickness.

My question here isÖ what was the cosmetics research able to find that the medical research couldnít, and would could have been done on behalf of medical research to find this? We donít need the cosmetics research as long as medical research is able to cover these grounds enough to find these things.

Kenny_C.002
08-31-2006, 06:12 PM
If we were meant to be herbivores, we would only have molars and bicuspids in our mouths for grinding down plants (such as a horse’s teeth), and not the incisors and canines that we do have. Also, for thousands of years, humans have eaten meats as part of our normal diet. It really shouldn’t come as a surprise that humans would be somewhat reluctant to change this natural lifestyle after so many years.

Correct and incorrect. I'm just stating the fact that humans can survive on just vegetables if needed/wanted. It is only a matter of difficulty. And recall that we were herbivores at some point in time.

This all ties with the means of how Operant and Classical Conditioning is used. Train an animal by giving them a reward for doing it correctly. Don't train an animal by punishing and inflicting physical pain on it when it simply doesn't even know what humans are trying to make it do.

It's actually just operant conditioning that's in action for the performances. Anyway, aside from that, you don't seem to have problems with ciruses that treat animals well, and thus it's again only a matter of regulation.

Take the cattle, and why not farm it for both food and its skin at the same time? The matter here is not wasting something that can be used as something else, as well as minimizing animal casualties.

Thing is that this is how we get our leather in the first place. I'm talking strictly about fur. It's rather difficult to get quality fur, and the only real solution is farming. Putting it this way, is it more desirable to just go off and kill wildlife instead of farming?

My question here is… what was the cosmetics research able to find that the medical research couldn’t, and would could have been done on behalf of medical research to find this? We don’t need the cosmetics research as long as medical research is able to cover these grounds enough to find these things.

Really just one difference: money. Aside from the CDC (recall that CDC does some medical research still), there isn't anything in medical research that gets enough money for R&D. Cosmetics on the other hand have money poured into them by the millions. Fact is that everything is driven by profit, medical research is expensive and very unproductive for the most part, and sponsors are reluctant to put money into medical research. This is as opposed to cosmetics research, where sponsors always have the faint hope that the next step in cosmetics will make them billions more. Thus cosmetics research can find the one thing medical research deperately needs: money.

It's only once a certain aspect of medical research gets off the ground (i.e. it's very likely that it will succeed) when the money does come into that aspect of medical research, as the lure of potential profit will work its way into sponsorship. See the problem?

Example: NAP was found to have the potential to lower blood pressure. At that point in time was when the sponsorship happened more often. If NAP was never found in the first place, then no sponsorship would happen. But if no sponsorship happened in the first place, NAP would never have been found.

Orange_Flaaffy
08-31-2006, 06:24 PM
Correct and incorrect. I'm just stating the fact that humans can survive on just vegetables if needed/wanted. It is only a matter of difficulty. And recall that we were herbivores at some point in time.
We were, but it was'nt until be started eating meat that our minds got bigger. Back when we were herbivores we also were nomains that never settled in one place. Hunting animals is what lead to many of our tools and reasoning skills.
Live and let live everyone, this debate is not going to change anyones mind. From the way their questions are written I'm pretty sure they have already set their ideals in stone:tongue:

Dakota
09-01-2006, 12:52 AM
Animals exist to support humans, the earth, and each other. I don't like animal cruelty, but I don't like putting animals at the same level of importance as people.

Aerial Acer
09-01-2006, 01:10 AM
First off, I'd like to state I dislike any animal activist/PETA people, you people obviously know nothing on the point of animals. Animals were put on this us for us, not for all you weirdos to protect with your stupid rights.

Kenny when were we ever herbivores? Since the beginning of time we have always had meat.

Also hunting should never be banned. It has also been happening since the beginning and if I recall correctly no animals have been extinct just from hunting. Also this comes froms a driver, do you seriously want all those freaking deer running out their and damaging your car and killing people? That's why we hunt deer, their over populated.

Dakota
09-01-2006, 01:14 AM
if I recall correctly no animals have been extinct just from hunting.

Buffalos?

Indians hunting them?

Aerial Acer
09-01-2006, 01:20 AM
Buffalos are still around their not extinct. :P

Also, the indians would never hunt something to extictiction. It was the white man who came in and started destroying the Buffalo population.

Orange_Flaaffy
09-01-2006, 03:38 AM
Buffalos are still around their not extinct. :P

Also, the indians would never hunt something to extictiction. It was the white man who came in and started destroying the Buffalo population.
That is right, I am part indain myself :).
The white settlers came though and just did mass killings of buffalo, they did not even eat most, if any of the meat. There are many many photos of cowboys just standing by huge rotting piles of buffalo they would kill, running them off cliffs just for fun :(.
Buffalo are now both alive and well in wild portective places and raised for meat on farms, they have made a real come back...

Kenny_C.002
09-01-2006, 03:40 AM
First off, I'd like to state I dislike any animal activist/PETA people, you people obviously know nothing on the point of animals. Animals were put on this us for us, not for all you weirdos to protect with your stupid rights.

Kenny when were we ever herbivores? Since the beginning of time we have always had meat.

Also hunting should never be banned. It has also been happening since the beginning and if I recall correctly no animals have been extinct just from hunting. Also this comes froms a driver, do you seriously want all those freaking deer running out their and damaging your car and killing people? That's why we hunt deer, their over populated.
PETA and other activists are more misinformed than anything else. What they see if a butchered up portion of everything and present it as evidence and proof.

The Mammoth was hunted to extinction. The cod population has been fished to the point where they can't support themselves without aid, and can never return to old population levels. etc. As I said, give the job to ecologists and they'll tell you how much you can hunt. Simple as that.

As for herbivores and what not - Dakota, turn away for one second here - we were herbivores just prior to our evolution into humans. Again, I must stress that humans CAN STILL BE HERBIVORES IF THEY WANT TO. PURE VEGETARIANS DO EXIST IN THIS WORLD AND CAN SURVIVE WITH A DIET PURELY BASED OFF BEANS, VEGETABLES, AND GRAIN, NO DAIRY OR MEAT NECESSARY. Again, the only difference is that they have a harder time assembling all of their essential nutrients, and have to eat lots of beans to compensate for the lack of meat they are eating. It's still viable.

Neo Emolga
09-01-2006, 12:19 PM
Also hunting should never be banned. It has also been happening since the beginning and if I recall correctly no animals have been extinct just from hunting. Also this comes froms a driver, do you seriously want all those freaking deer running out their and damaging your car and killing people? That's why we hunt deer, their over populated.

Well, I know in NJ, we have serious deer problems, but that's mainly because they have no where else to go after we've taken like... every bit of land that we could. Thing is, even on the way to work, I see at least three deer on the side of the road, obliterated by getting hit by a car. Not to mention, it's not easily fun to see that up ahead, there's a shower of animal body parts all over the road. So yeah, its a problem, but we have no one to blame but ourselves for this mess...

Thing is... we're over populated too. Does that mean we should legalize murder? Don't mind me saying, but animals wouldn't want to be hunted as much as we wouldn't want to be murdered...

Vampire
09-01-2006, 01:46 PM
First off, I'd like to state I dislike any animal activist/PETA people, you people obviously know nothing on the point of animals. Animals were put on this us for us, not for all you weirdos to protect with your stupid rights.
Kenny when were we ever herbivores? Since the beginning of time we have always had meat.

Also hunting should never be banned. It has also been happening since the beginning and if I recall correctly no animals have been extinct just from hunting. Also this comes froms a driver, do you seriously want all those freaking deer running out their and damaging your car and killing people? That's why we hunt deer, their over populated.
Animals where here first...So maybe we were for the animals?
Yes Kenny, the Mammoth! Aslo whale, tigers and panda are going extinct and we will never see the animal again, dosn't that upset you that your children or even your children's children, will never see these animals!
The poor animals should be protected and some should live in captivity until there population increases, I know they are diing this at the moment but as we realise them back into the wild poaches are out in the wild again.
Buffalos are still around their not extinct. :P

Also, the indians would never hunt something to extictiction. It was the white man who came in and started destroying the Buffalo population.

Well when will this monstocity end, once one animal dies out another hunting sport is born, until thiere are no animals, yes there will be many fish sheep and cattle, but soon people are going to be hunting more and more, and poaches will increase and hunting lisences will grow and thier will be no animals for us to enjoy wathcing in thier habitat as they will go into hinding, scared to come out and share the world with humans, but it is humans who will put them away, put them into hiding.

I believe the animal will come back one day and have thier vegence.

Dakota
09-01-2006, 08:30 PM
*doesn't avert eyes despite kenny's request*

OMGKENNY BEELEEVES IN evoLUTION HE NOT MY FRIEND!!!1o

:-D

I said it before but it kind of got ignored. I believe animals exist to sustain humans, sustain the earth, and to sustain each other. There's not really any other necessity for them. You can all go out and call me an evil biggoted animal-hater now. (btw: I have a dog named Chewy, which is awesome)

RouteMaster
09-01-2006, 08:33 PM
*doesn't avert eyes despite kenny's request*

OMGKENNY BEELEEVES IN evoLUTION HE NOT MY FRIEND!!!1o

:-D

I said it before but it kind of got ignored. I believe animals exist to sustain humans, sustain the earth, and to sustain each other. There's not really any other necessity for them. You can all go out and call me an evil biggoted animal-hater now. (btw: I have a dog named Chewy, which is awesome)

Why you biggoted, animal hater. :crackup: That's some interesting views you hold there Dakota.

Surly Professor
09-01-2006, 10:43 PM
Human beings are animals!

RedRoninMan
09-02-2006, 01:02 PM
I sorta have a unitary response for all of your questions. I dont think zoos are humane but I do have a nice leather jacket. I also dont thing those peolpe from peta should be arrested either. Sidenote:This really wouldnt be a problem if meat didnt taste so darn good:happy:Also, have you ever seen a pure vegetarian? They dont look healthy.

Dakota
09-02-2006, 01:40 PM
Human beings are animals!
...I don't think so. I think we have dominion over the animals.

Vampire
09-02-2006, 02:07 PM
...I don't think so. I think we have dominion over the animals.
But we are animals.

Surly Professor
09-02-2006, 05:56 PM
...I don't think so.
How would you classify yourself biologically then?

Dakota
09-02-2006, 07:05 PM
But we are animals.

I see a cycle going here.

How would you classify yourself biologically then?

...a human? And lemme guess, you're gonna say that we evolved from apes to homo habilus to homo erectus to sapien and all that. Just because a biology book says we're animals doesn't mean we're animals.

Surly Professor
09-03-2006, 12:28 AM
...a human? And lemme guess, you're gonna say that we evolved from apes to homo habilus to homo erectus to sapien and all that. Just because a biology book says we're animals doesn't mean we're animals.

I see, so it's ok for you to reference your book at every turn; but if I'm to mention anything from any other book no matter how scientific, credible, or down right logical it is it can be shrugged off as untrue... "just because"?

BTW, that's a rhetorical question, don't bother.
I'm completely done with this tangent.
So, I'm just gonna point this thread at PETA again.

___________

Something always seemed a bit "off" to me about PETA.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...DG11DC9BK1.DTL

Better Dead Than Fed, PETA Says

Don't be fooled by the slick propaganda of PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The organization may claim to champion the welfare of animals, as the many photos of cute puppies and kittens on its website suggest. But not long ago, two PETA employees were charged with 31 felony counts of animal cruelty each, after authorities found them dumping the dead bodies of 18 animals they had just picked up from a North Carolina animal shelter into a Dumpster. According to the Associated Press, 13 more dead animals were found in a van registered to PETA.
The arrest followed a rash of unwelcome discoveries of dead animals dumped in the area. According to veterinarian Patrick Proctor, the PETA people told North Carolina shelters they would try to find the dogs and cats homes. He handed over two adoptable kittens and their mother, only to learn later that they had died, without a chance to find a home, in the PETA van. "This is ethical?" Proctor railed over the phone. "I don't really think so."

This is not the first report that PETA killed animals it claimed to protect. In 1991, PETA killed 18 rabbits and 14 roosters it had previously "rescued" from a research facility. "We just don't have the money" to care for them, then PETA-Chairman Alex Pacheco told the Washington Times. The PETA animal shelter had run out of room.

The Center for Consumer Freedom, which represents the food industry, a frequent target of PETA campaigns, released data filed by PETA with the state of Virginia that shows PETA has killed more than 10,000 animals from 1998 to 2003. "In 2003, PETA euthanized over 85 percent of the animals it took in," said a press release from the lobby, "finding adoptive homes for just 14 percent. By comparison, the Norfolk (Va.) SPCA found adoptive homes for 73 percent of its animals and Virginia Beach SPCA adopted out 66 percent."

The Center's David Martosko considered PETA's hefty budget -- reportedly, $20 million -- and many contributions from well-heeled Hollywood celebrities, then figured, "PETA has enough money in the bank to care for every unwanted animal in Virginia (where it has its headquarters) and North Carolina."

PETA prefers to spend donations, apparently, not caring for flesh-and- blood animals entrusted to it but on campaigns attacking medical researchers, meat-eaters or women wearing furs. It is as if PETA prefers the idea of animals to animals themselves.

Why does PETA kill animals that might otherwise find a home?

I repeatedly phoned PETA, but never reached an official who would answer my questions. PETA's Web site spun the story under the banner, "PETA helping animals in North Carolina" with an emphasis on its efforts to "solve the animal overpopulation in North Carolina." Here's more: "PETA has provided euthanasia services to various counties in that state to prevent animals from being shot with a .22 behind a shed or gassed in windowless metal boxes -- both practices that were carried out until PETA volunteered to provide painless death for the animals." Make that painless deaths for animals that could have found love.

Besides, PETA always has been about killing animals. A 2003 New Yorker profile included PETA top dog Ingrid Newkirk's story of how she became involved in animal rights after a shelter put down stray kittens she brought there. So she went to work for an animal shelter in the 1970s, where, she explained, "I would go to work early, before anyone got there, and I would just kill the animals myself. Because I couldn't stand to let them go through (other workers abusing the animals.) I must have killed a thousand of them, sometimes dozens every day."

That's right. PETA assails other parties for killing animals for food or research. Then it kills animals -- but for really important reasons, such as running out of room.

Martosko hopes animal lovers will learn that their donations will do more good at a local animal shelter than at PETA. "For years," he added, "we thought that PETA just cared for animals more than they cared for humans. But now it seems they don't care much for either."

No lie about not caring for people. In 2003, Newkirk hectored late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat because a terrorist blew up a donkey in an attempt to blow up people. Newkirk also told the New Yorker the world would be a better place without people. She explained why she had herself sterilized: "I am opposed to having children. Having a purebred human baby is like having a purebred dog; it's nothing but vanity, human vanity."

Now you know. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals doesn't really like people. PETA has no use for ethics. And PETA kills animals.

Note to readers: My husband, Wesley J. Smith, is a senior fellow on animal-rights issues at the Discovery Institute.E-mail: dsaunders@sfchronicle.com.

Dakota
09-03-2006, 05:30 AM
I see, so it's ok for you to reference your book at every turn; but if I'm to mention anything from any other book no matter how scientific, credible, or down right logical it is it can be shrugged off as untrue... "just because"?

BTW, that's a rhetorical question, don't bother.
I'm completely done with this tangent.
So, I'm just gonna point this thread at PETA again.

:neutral: You can't just write out a paragraph arguement (directed towards me) and not expect me to give some sort of answer just because you say 'don't bother.'

I like science, don't get me wrong. But I'll believe the bible before I'll believe a science book that contradicts it. I guess you could say that I believe both books, but I'm not gonna believe something in a science book that says the bible is wrong. Besides, science books are updated with new (and sometimes completely different) information every 5 years.

Kenny_C.002
09-03-2006, 06:25 AM
:neutral: You can't just write out a paragraph arguement (directed towards me) and not expect me to give some sort of answer just because you say 'don't bother.'

I like science, don't get me wrong. But I'll believe the bible before I'll believe a science book that contradicts it. I guess you could say that I believe both books, but I'm not gonna believe something in a science book that says the bible is wrong. Besides, science books are updated with new (and sometimes completely different) information every 5 years.
Naw man, we went down this road before. It's best that you just stay clear of science overall. There's too much contradictions with the Bible.

Surly:

Hmmm...looks like PETA is what it's cracked up to be, crap and stupidity. -.-

Dakota
09-03-2006, 02:14 PM
I really do like science. But there's the actual science that is benficial for mankind, then there's the science that is there plainly to push some agenda. I bet you're all gonna think I'm dumb, but I think evolution is popular now simply because it's an alternative to God.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why do people say there are contradictions in the bible but they never give any examples...

And, please don't give me a link to a site that has umpteen thousand pages of texts. You know I won't read em all >_<

Seven
09-03-2006, 02:27 PM
I really do like science. But there's the actual science that is benficial for mankind, then there's the science that is there plainly to push some agenda. I bet you're all gonna think I'm dumb, but I think evolution is popular now simply because it's an alternative to God.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why do people say there are contradictions in the bible but they never give any examples...

And, please don't give me a link to a site that has umpteen thousand pages of texts. You know I won't read em all >_<

Try google: Bible contradictions. You'll be amazed. Also, there's the obvious difference between the god of the Old testament, and the god of the new testament.
I quote just a few Biblical contradictions - first link on google:

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

----

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

---

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

--------

JOB 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

JOB 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

----
Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

----

Exod. 24:9,10; Amos 9:1; Gen. 26:2; and John 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (Ex. 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (Ex. 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Gen. 32:30)

God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (Ex. 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16)
You get the picture.

GaryEX
09-03-2006, 02:58 PM
Try google: Bible contradictions. You'll be amazed. Also, there's the obvious difference between the god of the Old testament, and the god of the new testament.
I quote just a few Biblical contradictions - first link on google:

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

----

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

---

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

--------

JOB 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

JOB 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

----
Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

----

Exod. 24:9,10; Amos 9:1; Gen. 26:2; and John 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (Ex. 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (Ex. 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Gen. 32:30)

God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (Ex. 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16)
You get the picture.
An amimal is like a human and get treated like a human depending on the circumstances!

Kenny_C.002
09-03-2006, 04:10 PM
I really do like science. But there's the actual science that is benficial for mankind, then there's the science that is there plainly to push some agenda. I bet you're all gonna think I'm dumb, but I think evolution is popular now simply because it's an alternative to God.

7 got you covered in the bible stuff. I'll take care of this part.

1. The theory (read: FACT) of evolution is by no means pushing the agenda. If that were true, then there would be no use for evolutionary biology. We use evolutionary biology on a daily basis, whether in genetics or predicting the next strain of the flu virus. So stating that evolutionary biology is not beneficial to mankind is like saying electricity is not beneficial to technology.

2. Of course, evolution is "popular" not because it's alternative to God, but rather it is simply a fact of life. Again, I must continue to stress that evolution holds NO CONTRADICTIONS WITH ANY RELIGION WHATSOEVER, INCLUDING, AND NOT LIMITED TO, CHRISTIANITY. IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION. I have already quoted the Pope many times to the point that I don't need to quote him anymore to drive home this point.

3. Define "actual science", now compare that definition with "science". That's right, it's the same thing.

On a personal note: No, I just think you're a little too stubborn to see other sides of the same coin.