fchan

discussion

WTF is up with animal rights activists?

Pages:1 41
1Report
at 9 Aug 2007: 08:04

They seem to care more about the rights of animals than they do humans, it's ridiculous. You can see some of this absolutely illogical behaviour if you go on youtube and look at any video of people playing with their cats, giving them baths, etc etc. People will make a ton of moronic comments about how it's "cruel" or how the poster should "be killed for torturing their pet" etc etc. Because everyone knows waking up your cat while it's sleeping is just oh so cruel.

Thing is...in most cases there isn't even cruelty going on. Then what makes it worse is animal rights organizations are hypocrites. For instance...if you try to keep an exotic pet in your home they fully support it being taken away, put in a cage or KILLED. So even if you can prove the animal is well adjusted to your home, in a loving environment, etc etc animal rights activists think that animal should be taken away and killed. Their logic as to why this is ok and not traumatizing to the animal?

"It's just an animal", apparently exotic animals don't have the same feelings as farm animals or normal pets in their eyes.

Worse yet are the activists who state animals with a lifespan of less than 2-5 years should be saved and that millions of people should die for this cause. The subject matter in question? Animal testing to cure deadly diseases. I shit you not...I spoke to someone who said that a rats life was equal to a humans in worth. Now correct me if i'm wrong but 2-5 maximum lifespan compared to 60+ maximum lifespan...it's obvious humans have MORE life to life. Testing on animals for shallow stuff like make up is lame and fucked up but if it's to save millions of people how can you side with the rats?

When will this hypocrisy and illogical crap end?

2Report
at 9 Aug 2007: 08:08

>>1
Bah made a typo, "MORE life to live"

3Report
at 9 Aug 2007: 09:13

Did you see the incidents in the UK some years back? - You had animal rights people actually trying to _kill_ humans to save a few fuzzy bunnies and lab rats.

It's hard to quantify whether animal testing is ethiclly right or wrong, however it's natural for animals to destroy other animals to safeguard their own existance (Parasitic creatures that kill the host to birth their young, predatory animals that kill and eat to feed them and their young) so animal testing could be seen an extension of the same "rule of nature", "spending" the lives of other animals to safeguard the lives of millions of their own species.

Life-for-life thats better value than a predatory animals who may have to kill an animal every few days to keep itself alive...

4Report
at 9 Aug 2007: 09:30

The whole animal rights thing never made sense to me anyway..I mean, technically, animals don't exactly have "rights."  There are laws against mistreating them and the like just for the sake of sanity, but humans evolved to dominate everything for a reason.  Most animals aren't even as complex as people think.  Sure, they can feel pain, etc., but the majority of animals out there don't have a complex enough brain to have feelings, comprehension, or logic.

5Report
at 9 Aug 2007: 10:04

>>4
Actually they do. There was just an article I read recently that proved some animals were capable of compassion and were smart enough to recognize themselves in a mirror right off the bat. In this article they basically did a bunch of tests, one of which was to paint an x on various animals foreheads then put them infront of a mirror.

The greater apes and dolphins recognized right off the bat they were looking at themselves. Smaller monkeys and rats didn't. Also the elephants recognized themselves and one even felt the x showing a greater form of intelligence. Furthermore they mentioned another interesting story. Basically these zookeepers were cleaning up the enclosure one day working hard and the elephant with no prior training walked over and began to help them push the heavy cart.

THAT is a sign of compassion and scientists are no longer laughing at the concept that animals may be concious, able to feel compassion/love/etc and have intelligence that makes them more than just "dumb animals".

However, when it comes down to a human life I fully support killing off the less smart animals with small lifespans to save a human life. This is no different than what nature does when predators eat prey or parasites kill stuff to procreate.

The problem with activists is many of them become equivalent to fanatics which means they abandon all logic, become heavily biased and make everyone scoff at the idea of animal rights because of it. One comment on youtube actually said it was cruel to feed live rabbits to an anaconda. What the fuck do you think animals do in the wild? Wait for their prey to die of natural causes? People like this make my blood boil, can't believe retards like this actually exist.

6Report
at 9 Aug 2007: 10:23

"Yes the snake has to eat, yes this would probably happen in the wild, but it isnt the wild, its captivity, things alter then, i know people then do the best they can for the animals they have, but its still wrong to feed the snake a live animal, dead mice are the usual food for snakes in captivity."

"there are some sick tossers about and there is NO excuse for this kind of shit. these tossers are cruel to BOTH of these animals, but ultimatly the rabbit lossers its life... the snake however is still a beautiful animal, yet due to some so called "human" doing this disgusting shit, snakes get a bad reputation, it is the people that want mental health treatment for doing this shit..may they crawl back under the rock they came from.. the low life scum!!"

So basically...if it happens in the wild it's a-ok. If it happens in an apartment it's suddenly morally wrong and an act of cruelty. I believe this comment said it best

"it's funny how the people that comment on videos like these and call the owners of these wonderful reptiles "sick fucks" actually search for videos like these beforehand just to call them "sick fucks." "

7Report
at 9 Aug 2007: 10:59

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

All you need to know.

8Report
at 9 Aug 2007: 11:35

>>7
"I often receive phone calls from frantic people who have surrendered their pets to PETA with the understanding that PETA will "find them a good home." Many of them are led to believe that the animals will be taken to a nearby shelter. Little do they know that the pets are killed in the PETA van before they even pull away from the pet owner's home … PETA refuses to surrender animals they obtain to area shelters for rehoming. If only the celebrity "deep-pocket" donors on the west coast knew that their donations were going to kill adoptable cats and dogs here in Norfolk."

9Report
Hellfire at 9 Aug 2007: 13:42

>>7 That's pretty scary
http//www.nypost.com/...
http://www.courttv.com/news/2007/0118/PETA_ctv.html

Went and looked, figured it for more of a propaganda site than anything else.  There's a bit of that, but the links to major media covering the same stuff were rather enlightening.

10Report
at 9 Aug 2007: 13:59

>>9
PETA is an organization full of hypocrites and liars. They are some of the worst people on the planet promising people the pets will find good homes then killing them without batting an eyelash the next second. And all of this is of course for the animal's own good because apparently 90% of the pets are "broken" in some way.

11Report
at 9 Aug 2007: 14:04

People for the Execution of Tinylittlehelpless Animals

12Report
at 9 Aug 2007: 14:14

>>4
Those are still sentient qualities. Too many people confuse these two words. (This is even a problem in sci-fi novels!) What you are refering to is sentience, or basic primal thoughts and feelings, animals being able to miss their parents or siblings after death, sitting underneath their master's favorite chair, and so on. In fact, because sentience is so loose, it can even apply to most plants!

sen·tient (snshnt, -sh-nt)
adj.
1. Having sense perception; conscious: "The living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God's stage" T.E. Lawrence.
2. Experiencing sensation or feeling. <<<-Important!

sa·pi·ent (sp-nt)
adj.
Having great wisdom and discernment.

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

[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin sapins, sapient-, present participle of sapere, to taste, be wise; see sep- in Indo-European roots.]
Synonyms for SAPIENCE:
wisdom
deepness, astuteness, profoundness, profundity, depth - the intellectual ability to penetrate deeply into ideas
sagaciousness, sagacity, discernment, judgement, judgment - the mental ability to understand and discriminate between relations
know-how - the (technical) knowledge and skill required to do something

The correct word for complex brain functions is sapience, or awareness of a higher plane/higher calling of some sort, morality and logic and whatnot. (ie an elephant burying the dead) If an animal has to be domesticated/trained/placed in a controlled environment to have a right/wrong or bad/good distinction of nonessential objects, then it does not have sapience. Very very few animals like apes and elephants show this ability to weigh situations and do things which don't have an apparent reason.
All animals have sentience (basic empathetic feelings), not sapience.
Sorry, pet peeve, lol. I always have to point this out.

13Report
at 9 Aug 2007: 16:50

People are weird.  I had a buddy go apeshit and give me the silent treatment for 3 days cuz i said i wanted to go deer hunting just for the experience because i've never hunted before.  what's funny is that he eats meat every day, i myself have been a vegetarian for almost 15 years XD

And yes, the people i'm going with will eat the deer.

14Report
at 9 Aug 2007: 17:53

>>13
I hope you go! Hunting is some fun stuff even if you don't bag anything. But yeah, now that you mentioned that I remember a weird experience like that with a former girlfriend where she and I went to a restaurant where they displayed the owner's hunting trophies and she was throwing a near-tears fit about how horrible it was that those poor animals were killed, and then she proceeded to eat a plate of barbecue. No, she never did see the irony.

15Report
at 9 Aug 2007: 19:31

>>5
>>12
You'll notice I said "most" animals.

16Report
at 9 Aug 2007: 21:48

>>12
Sapience however is nothing more than a passing down of information. If we didn't constantly pass down information(language, history, skills, etc etc) then we would not have "sapience" either because we'd be too busy trying to survive just like animals in the wild. Sapience is not necessary in survival of a species.

To give an example...there are apes who use rocks in one region of the world as tools. They also create SPEARS our of sticks and scientists think they have passed down this knowledge to each generation. They think these apes have been doing it just as long as humans, going down their own evolutionary path through history right along side us rather than just imitating us.

Wouldn't that be considered "sapience" of some sort? I mean really...this sapience you speak of...even most HUMANS are incapable of it. If you really think hard about it a lot of people are pretty fucking retarded relying on nothing more than instinct and never being able to logically judge or think on a deeper level. If people were capable of this sapience then we wouldn't have many of the problems we currently have.

Now if sapience is simply technical knowledge of a required skill then those apes using spears without any human help and passing down knowledge clearly qualifies. Who knows what else animals pass down because we can't speak their language and may mistake their actions as sentience rather than sapience. Dogs have been picking up knowledge from humans from what this article said and they can now do things like count or do simple tasks.

This whole "we are so much better than any other life" type of thought needs to stop. It is elitism and it is unnecessary. We are making assumptions about life without having actual knowledge and assuming only humans are capable of having a soul, judgement, wisdom, passed down knowledge, etc etc and each time a new scientist makes a discovery he makes all those prior elitists look silly.

Simply put...most of what makes sapience a definition has no place in the wild because survival is the key trait needed. Therefore any kind of judgement, discernment or wisdom will be related to the issue of survival in the animal kingdom.

17Report
at 11 Aug 2007: 13:24

>>16

The primary difference is that they aren't advancing.  However, the same could be said of the African tribes when Europeans first encountered them.  They were wearing wood armor and using spears and primitive swords.  By measure of advancement in both culture and technology, they were very far behind the Europeans, but had been 'advancing' for just as long.

Along those same lines, it might be possible for the apes to be 'civilized', and perhaps even taught to think and understand as we do, but the underlying prejudice that humans would hold towards them, including those minorities currently whining about prejudice against their own group, would eventually force a conflict between them and us.  I don't think we would come off the betters.  Even if we won, we would lose a part of our soul over it.

I feel the same way about any "uplifted" animal species.  I would personally love to co-exist with beings like that, but I don't think that humanity is mature enough for it.

18Report
Sherako the Hyena at 11 Aug 2007: 19:54

On the contrary, there is a benefit of having people like that.  Have you seen how tame our animal rights laws are?  Most of them are really weak.  I remeber a rather horrible story of a man who had (DONT READ IF YOU ARE SQUEAMISH) decapitated a pair of kittens owned by a young girl and left their remins in her bed for her to find.  The owrs fact is that due to the laws, he will see possibly only a fine ans some light prison sentence for a truly evil crime agaiuns animals and humankind allike.  Only active movements could force the laws to be far more strict.  Honestly, if you get enjoyment out of torturing or decapitating animals and do so, you should be put away for a very long time.  Such a person is definitely not mentally healthy and is likely to spread their violence beyond the scope of the animal world.  Criminally insane indiviuals have been known to have tortured animals as youths.

P.S. and if anyone harms or kills a kitten in front of me, I cannot guarantee what will happen to them. 

19Report
at 11 Aug 2007: 20:17

>>18
Lol, a guy in california killed a bar owl with a slingshot and got 10,000 dollars in fines and i think 3 months in jail.  Yeah what the guy you mentioned is twisted and he should see a little time and get a huge fine.  People get out of prison after ten years for killing a HUMAN, if you really think no matter how twisted the incident is that a guy should get ANY sort of comparable jailtime for killing a couple kittens to what people get for killing a human being, you're got some serious issues.

20Report
. at 11 Aug 2007: 23:10

I like how people assume everyone has to value human life over everything else. Plainly retarded laws on letting murders out of jail don't mean you should suddenly not care about anything else's life. People always use the excuse "people are suffering in the world, we have to ignore all animal rights until that's fixed" because they know suffering can never end. Thus avoiding the subject and doing nothing. The most obvious way to do it is to do both at the same time, which isn't that hard.

Then there are all those "extreme BBQin Americans" who label everyone as stupid hippies if they even mention animal rights, as if everyone is a member of PETA and bitches about pointless things like those cat bathing videos on youtube. Idiots making stupid excuses that convince other idiots is what causes all these problems, well beyond just animal and human rights.

Anyone who isn't a stupid child and likes torturing/killing anything for fun shouldn't even be allowed to live, weither they grow up to be murderers or not. Leaving them in jail and wasting money that could be used to solve the issues they're part of doesn't really help either; they're not worth the resources. Plus humans are much more efficient in testing than rats, well important tests that is. Germany proved that, in just several years of testing on people they've saved millions of lives by advancing health care rapidly. Not saying that should be done on innocent people, but criminals are good to use.

21Report (sage)
at 11 Aug 2007: 23:47

>>20
So, what you're saying is that we should follow the sterling example of the Nazis and experiment on humans instead of poor, innocent animals? That is, provided the test subjects have done something horrible, like  jaywalked, dealt pot or sassed back the current administration or been the wrong race. And that animals killing other animals in a horribly gruesome manner- sometimes snacking on them while they're still alive and kicking- is okay, while someone bathing their cat should be immediately terminated with extreme prejudice?

No cheeseburgers for you! In fact, may you never know the sweet, savory taste of bacon for the rest of your days.

22Report
at 12 Aug 2007: 00:57

>>21
I'm glad you said sweet, savory bacon, that reminds me, I'm gonna have some deeee-licious bacon right now!

Because only one thing tastes like bacon...

And that's bacon.

23Report
at 12 Aug 2007: 02:39

Ironically, in the end sacrificing animals to find cures to diseases will aid in our demise. The more people we can save the more of a problem overpopulation becomes and the closer we get to using up all natural resources. What we should do is just have researchers pay willing volunteers to be subjects in the experiments. Experiments that call for an outright snuff should simply not be done.

Anyway, trying to base the value of life on the length of said life is foolish. There are plenty of people with predetermined lifespans shorter than certain animals due to health complications. Does that mean those people are expendable? And there's no definite way of telling how intelligent other animals are. There's no such thing as a perfectly controlled environment, all experiments have their contaminations. It's possible plenty of animals are far more intelligent then we can begin to imagine, and it's possible that they're far less intelligent. Rather than gamble on how intelligent they are for a stupid technicality it's probably best to simply show compassion, because 'equal' or not they are still alive. I mean if we're gonna draw the line between humans and animals, we might as well draw the line between individuals and take away the rights of the mentally challenged.

24Report
at 12 Aug 2007: 03:48

>>23
Yes, a person with a disease SHOULD be valued less. If there was an instance where a bus full of diseased people who were going to die in lets say a few years were capable of saving an equal number of people who are going to live for another 30+ years and you HAVE to make the choice between one or the other it's obvious who to choose.

Sometimes it comes down to a lesser of two evils situation and killing a bunch of rats(or embryonic stem cells) to save a bunch of people's lives is a worthwhile endeavour.

25Report
at 12 Aug 2007: 20:35

but there is also a lot of tests that were run that didnt help humans in anyway..in fact they cause the deaths and defects of thousands or more people..ive actually written a paper on it..but for some instances..in the feild of surgury..animal experiments made things worse, radial keratotomy is the surgery to enable better vision without without glasses..the surgeons thought they hadperfected the procedure on rabbits..but it blinded the first humans..big help there.

26Report
FurryFox at 12 Aug 2007: 20:51

but animals experiments havent always helped..in fact..its caused thoudands if not more human deaths and defects
like in surgery, Radial Keratotomy is the surgery to make ur vision better without glasses..the surgeons thought they had perfeced the procedure on rabbits..but it had blinded the first humans.
hell..even flouride..something most people use everyday..wasnt used for a long time because it caused cancer in rats when they tested on them, it wasnt until a dentist was studying humans in an area with more flouride in the water that they noticed it was good for us.
and there are many pointless experiments that wont really save anyone.."researchers" would give pregnant rabbits cocain on a daily basis to study "maternal drug use"..and would shock the babies in the mother to see how stress affects them.
and probably one of the biggest ones is testing treatments for AIDS and HIV, the experiments on primates have a long history of misleading scientist about AIDS and mislead them about how rapidly HIV replicates which resulted in mistreatment and lost lives of humans. and the worst part is that the current medications used to treat AIDS were discovered in a test tube and bypassed animal testing all together..so much waisted time..money..and lives..both human and animal.

27Report
Sgt. "Bizzle" Guano at 12 Aug 2007: 23:00

>>26  Fluoride is just a communist plot to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

28Report
at 13 Aug 2007: 03:08

>>27
Actually fluoride DOES contain toxic poisons which is why they tell you to call poison control if you swallow more than what would be used in a single brushing session. Also studies have shown fluoride to have ZERO positive effect on improving dental health and even several dentists of mine who I trusted and were VERY TALENTED said fluoride does nothing. They told me brushing with salt water would get you the exact same benefits.

The sad thing about your post is I don't think you even realize that the communist countries you speak of BAN fluoride use in their water. America tried to convince Europe to start putting fluoride in the water supply and they flat out said to fuck off. China has studies that prove fluoride in water and brushing cause children to develop an IQ 10-20 points lower than the children who weren't exposed to fluoride.

Is it some super dangerous kill you poison? No. Does it lower IQ? Yes. Does it inhibit brain function? Yes. Is it a conspiracy? Probably not. Just stupidity and failure to recognize the fact it has no positive benefits. It's like anything else in this country...it takes them 20 years to recognize the problem then another 20 years to fix it.

29Report
at 13 Aug 2007: 03:54

>>28
That was so full of half-truths and outright lies that I'm presuming that you're actually a politician in RL. :/

European countries refuse to use it for ethical reasons, not for medical ones. We don't appreciate compulsory medication over here, even when it's absolutely harmless.

Positive benefits have been widely documented, the negative effects have been disproved by over hundred sources. I don't know where you pulled your "facts" from, but it sounds like you got them from some second-rate conspiracy site.

30Report
at 13 Aug 2007: 04:18

>>29
Uh huh.

31Report
at 13 Aug 2007: 04:26

>>29
What you fail to realize is the people who speak against fluoride have nothing to gain but the people who speak in defense of fluoride have much to gain. First off there is not enough research in the area to even say if prolonged exposure to fluoride causes any negative side effects(aside from chinese GOVERNMENT studies which you obviously think are lies)

Second large amounts of fluoride IS a poison so it's only logical to think that maybe just maybe it accumulates over the years and causes problems. Why should anyone be forced into ingesting this material which may cause problems?

Third, please post links to these so called "hundred sources" that state fluoride makes a meaningful difference in dental health. If it was such a miracle treatment why did my dentists say it wasn't needed to maintain healthy teeth? What did they have to gain by saying that? Furthermore...they asked me not to mention that they did say that or ever mention their name which makes me wonder even more wtf is going on.

Finally, you can get a study to say anything you want it to say, a good study worth trusting is about MOTIVE. What does someone have to gain by saying something is safe? What do they have to gain by saying it may not be safe? In the case of fluoride it's a big ass industry making lots of money and if it lowers IQ and makes people more complacent as the chinese studies showed then that's even better. As for the people arguing against it...what do they have to gain? Nothing. That's what.

Believe what you want though, I honestly don't give a fuck because i've argued with so many people like you over the years. I'll continue trusting my dentists who are good people and studies with nothing to gain.

32Report
at 13 Aug 2007: 04:28

>>31
Oh...by the way...there were studies that once said smoking is good for your health. Just wanted to say that to give you an idea of what people with special interests can make anyone say if they have something to gain.

33Report (sage)
at 13 Aug 2007: 04:49

>>31
Whoo! Art Bell is waiting for YOU!

If you want factual information, try Googling/Yahooing/Dogpiling/Whatevering instead of listening to the imaginary dentist you're citing. Caries has been practically erradicated due to fluoridation, so it might just be that dentist is lookng to drum up business.

Water in great enough quantities is poisonous, too, but aside from that, the most harmful aspect of over-fluoridation has been cosmetic spotting on dental enamel- which is how they first noticed how the natural presence of fluorites in drinking water had a salutaory effect in preventing dental decay.

Sorry, but all that spew you're spouting went out of style in the mid-60's.

34Report
at 13 Aug 2007: 04:56

Well, everyone knows that when the topic of magnificent teeth comes up, Europe immediately pops to mind.

35Report
at 13 Aug 2007: 05:07

>>33
I'm done with this conversation. Ever since i've stopped using fluoride i've felt more energetic, have had better concentration and have had more creative ideas. This is BEFORE I read up on any of this fluoride stuff and my dentist told me, so it's not some placebo effect.

I don't care what the studies say and what you say or what anyone else says. I noticed the effects of not using fluoride first hand and i'm never going back. Period.

By the way in case you are interested why I didn't use fluoride...my family ran into money troubles and we couldn't afford toothpaste so I used saltwater.

36Report
at 13 Aug 2007: 05:19

>>35 No, it's a placebo effect, you've just reinforced that it is.
And indeed, I would bet your a Art Bell listener, ask him how long before he returns.

37Report
at 13 Aug 2007: 06:39

>>36
Are you fucking stupid? I said I quit using fluoride and saw the effect BEFORE I read any of this information and before my dentist told me anything. How can it be a placebo effect if I wasn't aware of the information saying fluoride was bad? God damn.

38Report
at 13 Aug 2007: 07:31

>>37
I don't think you even realize that water contains fluoride by default. Lakes, rivers, wells, etc - all the sources where our ancestors got it from. Think about that for a bit.

Everything is dangerous if you overdose on it, fluoride isn't any exception.

There are countless reasons why your health could've improved, yet you seem to be somehow convinced that it was because you stopped using fluoride. Maybe you just needed more salt in your diet. :P

39Report
"Bizzle" Turgedson at 13 Aug 2007: 08:27

>>28  No, the sad thing is that nobody recognizes a Dr. Strangelove reference anymore.

40Report
Sen at 13 Aug 2007: 08:34

Man this topic is completely derailed now.

72Add Reply
Name Sage? - captcha =
First Page - Last 40 - Entire Thread

Powered by: Shiichan Version 3956
The contents of this page are asserted to be in the public domain by the posters.
The administrators claim no responsibility for thread content.
Manage