“Talking to Naomi Campbell is like talking to my r****ded cousin, Marnie. You’re not quite sure what they understand, but they smile a lot." -I'm still laughing ------------------ PRO HOTTEST CHICKS FORUM!!
That imagery sure is effective, but totally counterproductive to what PETA is trying to do. What a bunch of schmucks. ------------------ The ClutchCity 500.
If he is the best they can do for a spokesman, that is simply pathetic. One of the issues I have with PETA (and I have been a supporter in the past because of my belief in animal rights) is that they say they want compassion for all living things yet they are continually insensitive to their fellow humans. I support the protection of animals but I never force my beliefs on anyone. What I find disturbing about PETA's tactics the past couple of years is the fact that they are becoming less and less compassionate towards children and those who disagree with them. "r****ded?" That is about as insensitive as you can get and as discompassionate as well. At least have a little class for God's sake. ------------------ "No one gets out ALIVE!" SaveOurRockets.com
http://www.msnbc.com/news/432197.asp Campbell vs. PETA, again The fur is flying between Naomi Campbell and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Campbell was once a spokesperson for PETA — she even posed nude, declaring, “I’d rather go naked than wear fur.” PETA fired Campbell several years ago after she wore fur on several occasions. Now, Campbell says, she quit PETA because it’s a violent organization. “I found them quite violent and I wanted to dissociate myself from them,” Campbell told the London Express. “Someone for PETA said: ‘I support the killer of Gianni Versace’ and I didn’t want to be affiliated with them.” “I made a sick joke about Gianni Versace — but that was three years after we’d already fired Naomi,” Dan Mathews, a spokesman for PETA, told The Scoop. “Talking to Naomi Campbell is like talking to my r****ded cousin, Marnie. You’re not quite sure what they understand, but they smile a lot. But at least my cousin knows better than to wear fur.” ------------------ Stay Cool...
Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do." -- Dale Carnegie Unfortunately, when the truth gets too close to a person, they tend to get defensive and lash out with stupid statements and name calling. Doesn't seem to matter: liberal left or radical right, feminist or misogynist, incumbent or challenger, animal lover or animal fanatic. I love animals as much, if not more, than the next person, but I also believe more human lives have been, and will be, saved through the use of animal experimentation. Sometimes "sacrifices of the few for the good of the many" are necessary. ------------------ "Who Wants To Be A Rocket?" - and probably a millionaire as well. The off-season will be interesting!
Jeff, Just out of curiosity, how does this mesh with your views on cancer research? Is it right to experiment with cancer treatments on animals, in order to possibly save a few lives? Or do you just do your experimenting on humans, and see what works? It's a question I struggle with -- at what point does a human life, possibly saved, take precedent over harming the quality of life of animals. I see it as a necessary evil, to an extent -- but I couldn't do it. Feel free to dodge this one if you want to. Some of these discussions are getting awfully deep for the "fun" board. ------------------ Stay Cool...
That's ok, dc. I think I can sum up my views. I believe in reincarnation. There, I've said it. I believe that ALL life is sacred and is part of the birth and re-birth cycle. So, in my belief system, one of my cats may have been a friend in a previous life because I believe we souls travel similar paths. As a result, I am morally opposed to the harming of animals for the sake of medical experiments, but I will not judge. It is not for me to judge the practices of anyone, let alone those working for what is thought of as a common good. If I didn't believe that all these animals will be re-born like the rest of us, I would probably be more radical about it, which is why I understand but don't agree with anti-abortion activists. If I believed every unborn fetus was doomed to hell, I'd probably be against it too (I was in a previous version of myself around 18 years old when I was a born again Christian, but that is for another thread). I guess my belief is that no animal should be harmed for what is considered the common good of man because I believe all animals have feelings and souls as we do. If we asked them and they said it was ok, that would be one thing. But, we can't ask and they can't answer so we have to respect them as living creatures. It is a VERY tough thing to deal with simply because of the lives that many experiments have saved, but life IS paradox and the difficulty reconciling those feelings is what makes us a work in progress as a society. Hope this helps explain my feelings. ------------------ "No one gets out ALIVE!" SaveOurRockets.com
Interesting question, dc. I will try to answer this without giving an answer because it is too slippery. I beleieve that experimentation on animals is generally a bad thing. It can be pushed to down right evil if it i for no real gain. However, major diseases are a bad thing, right? So which is worse? Well, I think this issue can be skirted somewhat because you can always find sick people who will consent to being involved in experimentation. Being that they are consenting, this is the best avenue. While my beleifs are not the same as Jeff's in regard to reincarnation, I basically feel that thinking of animals only as "non-human" and thus, not as important expendable, etc is counterproductive to the overall working of life itself. Like dc, I could never participate myself. I, however, feel that it will prbably always go on. I can only hope that it is limited. This brings to mind a new question: With the advent of cloning, what are the ethical parameters involved with the cloning of animals only to use in disease experimentation? Is this better, or worse? Michael Bakunin said that in order to create you must first destroy and that destruction itself is a creative urge. Is this justification in this scenario? ------------------ "One evening I seated Beauty on my knees. And I found her bitter." "I am a sick man...I am a wicked man. An unattractive man. I think my liver hurts."
"So, in my belief system, one of my cats may have been a friend in a previous life because I believe we souls travel similar paths." Jeff- let's say that one of your cats is a friend reincarnated from a previous life. Don't you think that if he could save your life by sacrificing his, he would? If I were reincarnated as an animal, I'd gladly exchange my short, almost meaningless time here for a chance to save people and in effect give meaning to my life. It may sound a bit like enslavement to the human species, but if I could squeaze a little more usefullness out of my life as an animal aside from being part of the food chain, then I'd do it. ------------------ WE WILL WATCH THEM FALL... Next year
I advocate research on non humans provided we use human organisms that do not fit the criteria of a 'higher life' as well, generally the developmentally disabled. In essence, let's use Dan's 'r****ded cousin Marnie'. I, of course, am kidding... but this is the standard counterexample to the argument that non human experimentation is okay because of our status as 'higher level' organisms. The image of using someone with down's syndrome in an experiment is repulsive; however, many if not all of the higher level primates being tortured at Duke University (for example) right now lead much richer lives. Experimentation seems to be weighed with the values of the culture, it seems. The idea of rabbits or mice losing their lives or undergoing genetic mutilation for something as trivial as makeup or shampoo research is utterly repugnant. Under no circumstances would I support primatological experimentation for even the most significant of human disorders including HIV, AIDS, etc. There are enough unlucky individuals in our own group that suffer from the largest ailments to avoid having to make interspecific interpolations. rimbaud: The cloning phenomena would only get past one item, I would think, in bioethics... of course, endangered species concerns. 'meaningless time' HAHAHAHAHAAA Geez Antisonic, you're not a Christian or anything are you? 4.6 Billion years ago, the planet took shape. Everything since then has been on hold until we got here as the culimination, ehhh? ------------------ The ClutchCity 500.
Anti: I certainly would be willing to give my life to save someone, now or if I was a cat, dog, etc. The points you bring up made me think for a moment. How is it that you can define your life as more meaningful than that of an animal? What makes you or me that much more special than a cow or a cat or a roach? What exactly do we do that is so special and so important that we have the right to choose which animals live and which die (or which humans - but that is another thread )? Don't we also have to justify our own existence to the world? I am always surprised by the level of moral superiority we feel as humans simply because we are humans. We have done more damage to this world than any other animal and yet we feel like we own it. Rather than live in peaceful co-existence with other species, we choose to dominate them. We defend ourselves by saying that our ability to reason sets us above animals. The fact is that life in our world is symbiotic. If one species dies off, ALL species must adapt. You talk about animals simply being part of the food chain. Well, we are part of the food chain too. We have just found ways to avoid it most of the time, but most animals, one-on-one, are far more dangerous to us than we are to them. The ability to kill and destroy doesn't give us the RIGHT to do it. It only makes us repsonsible for doing it. Like freedom, great power comes with great risk and great responsibility. As the current dominant species on this planet (well, at least in some parts of the world), we have the responsibilty to do whatever is necessary to maintain the balance of nature. Just because we think our lives are more meaningful doesn't mean they are. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
"4.6 Billion years ago, the planet took shape. Everything since then has been on hold until we got here as the culimination, ehhh?" Achebe- Maybe. Jeff- does a lion, crocodile, or shark have the right to kill us or any other animal for food? I think they do, so why can't we have the right to use other animals for our own survival? I'm not talking about torturing animals for pleasure, or even doing research on cosmetics. If an animal has to die for us to live, then why is it unethical? It happens in nature all the time. "How is it that you can define your life as more meaningful than that of an animal?" Each human has the potential to make the world a better place. You won't see very many roaches with that opportunity. On the otherhand, if I was a retired racehorse put out to stud, I probably wouldn't see much point in a human's mundane existence either... ------------------ WE WILL WATCH THEM FALL... Next year
Anti: Killing for survival as in food is one thing and killing for POSSIBLE survival is another. Using animals for experiments does not guarantee survival for us, it only gives us the possibility at prolonging our existence. Those are two completely separate issues altogether. Each human has the potential to make the world a better place. You won't see very many roaches with that opportunity. How do you know this? On what do you base your criteria? How do humans make this world a better place exactly? Are we creating a better atmosphere to add to the sustainablitly of life? Are we encouraging the growth of new plant and animal life? Are we committing ourselves to the betterment of all species? I could argue very easily that we are actually doing the very opposite of these. Do humans posses the ability to do differently? Yes, we do. Do other animals? We don't know. It is impossible for us to determine that. You are basing your assumptions on the concept that humans are the highest order of lifeform. We cannot substantiate that belief in any way. We don't know what a roach or an elephant or a slug is capabale of. For all we know, they could be the very things holding the fabric of the planet together. Or, they could, at the very least, just simply be existing like we are. Either way, it is fairly arrogant to assume that we are somehow better equipped to know what is right for this planet or even humanity. We could be killing off the very species that afford us survival. We have no way of knowing. That is why destruction, in this instance, is so dangerous. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
"Killing for survival as in food is one thing and killing for POSSIBLE survival is another." Jeff, you have to take risks. If that door is opened even a crack, you have to go for it. It would be a complete disservice to evolution(or whatever brought us to where we are) if we did not use the resources at our disposal for survival. "You are basing your assumptions on the concept that humans are the highest order of lifeform. We cannot substantiate that belief in any way." No, I'm basing my assumptions that if a soul is reincarnated as an animal, it would be willing to give its life for the benefit of billions of other animals rather than the mere survival of one or a few. That's what I meant by more "meaningful." "We don't know what a roach or an elephant or a slug is capabale of." I'll concede you that part of the argument. Roaches would survive in a post-nuclear-war world. It's almost as if nature pre-programmed defenses for life in anticipation of our power... "Are we creating a better atmosphere to add to the sustainablitly of life? Are we encouraging the growth of new plant and animal life? Are we committing ourselves to the betterment of all species?" Granted, many of us aren't, but some of us are trying to. "We could be killing off the very species that afford us survival. We have no way of knowing. That is why destruction, in this instance, is so dangerous." I was under the impression that lab animals were of hefty supply? Why would we irradicate a species that we depend on? ------------------ WE WILL WATCH THEM FALL... Next year
Fair enough, Anti. You make good arguments. Here is how I feel plain and simple. If we cannot know for sure that an animal has given us permission to take their life in an effort to prolong our own, we have no right to do it. Just because we have the ability to take that life doesn't make it right to do so. Now, if we somehow determine that these animals are giving their lives freely and for the benefit of human-kind, then that is another story. Until that time, we can only assume otherwise. If, as you argue, animals are so willing to give their lives for our existence, why are we not willing to give our lives for theirs or even for our own. I don't mean extrodinary circumstances where you give your life under extreme circumstances. I mean the calculated giving of life for the betterment of human-kind. Would you allow yourself to be experimented on for the betterment of the world? Some people do it for money but you can't legally ask someone to give their life for it. What I'm saying is if we feel it so necessary to take a defenseless animal's life who has NO ability to communicate for itself, why are we not then willing to do the same to our own. You say that labratory animals are in hefty supply. You are correct. Well, so are we humans. In fact, we are in OVER supply. My point is that you probably wouldn't volunteer your brother or your friend for the good of mankind. You probably would even be reluctant to volunteer yourself. Who wouldn't! So, to volunteer another lifeform in the pursuit of longer life for ourselves when that lifeform has no ability to give its consent is inhumane. That is just how I feel. I realize everyone has their own opinion and that is ok. That's why this forum exists. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
Well, I wouldn't call it "beating" you. You make good arguments and it is a very tough issue especially because we all want to live long lives and some experiments may afford us a better shot at that. There are no easy answers, for sure. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
"My point is that you probably wouldn't volunteer your brother or your friend for the good of mankind. You probably would even be reluctant to volunteer yourself. Who wouldn't! So, to volunteer another lifeform in the pursuit of longer life for ourselves when that lifeform has no ability to give its consent is inhumane." That's a very good point, Jeff... "... why are we not willing to give our lives for theirs or even for our own? I'm sure there are people out there who would gladly die if they could completely irradicate a disease that affects another species, but I'm a hypocrite that wouldn't do it until my twilight years ... I can understand why you feel the way you do, and it is a very noble cause, but I think that the ends are going to justify the means. Could we do it differently? Yes. Should we? Probably... However, I think a huge problem with human experimentation is that the supply will dry up fast and replenish itself slowly or maybe even not at all. Whereas in rats, rabbits, and gunea pigs, you have animals that rapidly spawn new generations and test subjects. Is it right? As you pointed out, it certainly has its ethical flaws, but it does pay off. Is it economical? Yes. Research costs a lot, and the less money you have to devote to keeping care of your specimens, the more money you can contribute to other areas of work... Okay Jeff, you beat me on this one. It isn't ethically right, but it's the most effective measure we have. ------------------ WE WILL WATCH THEM FALL... Next year
"You don't know what a roach or an elephant or a slug is capable of". Good grief! Has anyone on this thread ever taken a biology course or a logic course? Animals may/do feel pain, but they do not think or reason. Humans are the highest form of earthly life. While I do agree that animal experimentation is unnecessary for those developing cosmetics, I think it is essential for modern medicine. I don't want to make you mad Jeff, but reincarnation is not only illogical and unproven, but is just plain silly. I saw a TV special about Indians praying to rats. Incredible! The more intelliegent species will survive, and that sometimes means the lower orders have to be sacrificed for the greater good, unless you're some sort of pacifist who can't even kill a mosquito or a roach. ------------------ "Who Wants To Be A Rocket?" - and probably a millionaire as well. The off-season will be interesting!
Yes, let's exchange transcripts. I'm not sure what the may/do thing means. I suppose you're suggesting that sentient organisms experience pleasure & pain. I will agree with that (obviously, since it is by definition). The claim that animals do not think or reason is obviously broad and naive. You should qualify this to the 'lower' level organisms to which you are referring (i.e. not squid, not chimps, etc. etc.). Mmmmm... human hubris, my favorite. While I tend to agree with you, I believe that I have arrived at my conclusion from a different path. Rather than discuss 'levels of superiority' right now, I think that it would be more interesting to discuss Paul Taylor's Environmental Ethics. In it, Paul Taylor argues that the notion of 'superiority' is absurd. Each (proficient) species has adapted to its environment. A cheetah has no use for geology or math, speed is its tool. Are humans to be measured against the cheetah's adaptations? Can we brachiate from a branch for 15 hours at a time like an Orangutan? No, but it doesn't fit our niche. Obviously, there are several scenarios that we could list that show that some organism has a skill that is more sophisticated than our own in that given area; also, that skill proves sufficient for said species' niche. Paul Taylor argues that, therefore, comparisons across species are irrelevant. (Hopefully I am being fair to Paul Taylor, I've hiked 18 miles in less than 30 hours, and I'm a bit tired) ------------------ The ClutchCity 500.
