Animals Rights: when do humans take precedence?

[Zhade]

This is not intended to attack supporters of animal rights. This will hopefully be as productive (and personally enlightening) as my last thread, with the same level of honest back-and-forth.

The question I pose is a tough one, I imagine, for AR supporters - at what point does human life take precedence over animal life?

This question is prompted by the LBN item regarding the alleged poisoning of POM pomegranate juice on the Eastern seaboard, and the (to me) bewildering stance of a very few DUers that targeting, or threatening to target, innocent consumers to send a message to POM somehow isn't a form of terrorism.

These posters make me ask the above question, because their stance makes me wonder of there ever comes a time when animal welfare takes a back seat to human welfare.

As a hypothetical example - you're a vegan, stranded on a deserted island. The only options for survival are water and the fish you manage to catch. No edible plants grow on the island.

Would you at some point decide to eat fish, if it meant life or death?

Or animal testing - suppose your loved one comes down with a disease that has a potential cure, but the cure must still be tested. No humans will volunteer (and of course we cannot force anyone to 'volunteer'). Only animals can be used. Would you support the testing?

More important than "yes" or "no" is "why" you answer as you do, and your reasoning. I'm really trying to get into your head, so be as forthright as possible - I want to learn what motivates your stance on this question.

Thanks in advance for a (hopefully) civil, interesting thread!

[Dirty Hippie]

1. A good friend of mine who is veg

explains it this way...

She says that if it was necessary for survival, yes she would eat an animal, and that would include another human in the most extreme circumstances.

But she is vegetarian because we don't have to eat animals to survive so she feels we should not.

If we don't need to kill to live and thrive why should we?

I am an off-and-on vegetarian.

I struggle so much with anemia that sometimes I eat beef to try and get iron.

[svpadgham]

3. I heard that

if you cook your food in cast iron pots and pans that will help your iron intake. Is that true?

[Critters2]

60. Yep. It's what I do. I'm vegetarian--vegan in my own home,

and I only use cast-iron cookware. Before I did, I had trouble with anemia. No more.

Veg's can also take molasses-based iron. I can't recall the technical name, but it is vegan.

[svpadgham]

2. I asked some one on DU

about the ethical dilemma of eating meat. I mentioned that I understood the health benefits and all, but I couldn't understand the ethics behind being a vegetarian. The answer I got was that he/she wasn't comfortable with another animal dying so he/she could continue living. Honestly, I still don't get it.
The question I have is this. If you had a dog that was a hero dog. Let's call him "Jake." Jake is the greatest dog in the history of dogs. He roams the neighborhood, while you're at work, finding babies trapped in wells to rescue. He already drug your ass out of a burning building...twice. You and Jake almost have a telepathic bond. Jake has even rescued the retarded kid next door. We'll call him "Jimmy." Jimmy comes to your yard and tramples your flower bed. He's also deformed. He's got all but one of his teeth on the outside of his mouth. You've me Jimmy's mom and you can tell she's at her wits end. She really can't handle Jimmy. Jimmy doesn't care he just head-butts her and starts screaming incoherently. In fact Jimmy was the one that set your house on fire both times Jake pulled you out. Jimmy's mom still says that Jimmy is special and God made him that way for a reason, and she wouldn't have him any other way. You know she's just being a "mom" though. Anyway you're out camping with Jake and Jake's running around on the look out for bears and stuff. Suddenly coming down the river is Jake, and he's got Jimmy by the shirt trying to save the kid. The current is too strong though, and they're going to go over the waterfall and plummet onto the sharp jagged rocks 300 feet below. You can only grab one and pull him out. If you grab Jimmy, Jake can't fight the current in time to save himself, but if you grab Jake, Jimmy is too dumb to save himself. WHO DO YOU SAVE? I think most people would save Jimmy...Why? Because in the end, Jake is just a dog. Maybe I'm wrong. I going to get a bunch of shit over this.

[nini]

14. quite a story

:-)


I'm not going to try and answer it..but I see your point.

[everythingsxen]

32. Well since I am not a vegan or a huge animal rights person, I will be..

the first one to say...

I save Jake.

Fuck Timmy.

I would feel bad about it, and I refuse to accept a no-win scenario of only saving one of them. If that is the condition though, I save Jake. He is my best friend in the scenario described and Timmy is a jackass. Sure Timmy may not know any better, but it doesn't much matter.

I save my friends and family first, no matter what race or species they are.

[misanthrope]

41. Society benefits more by saving Jake...

...Some may say its socialist, but true.

[Critters2]

64. Jake. Hands down, walkin' away, twice on Sunday.

Great dog. Bratty kid.

No contest.


Flame away.


(Critters tried to do her regular grocery shopping today, while every mom in the world had every kid--out of school for the holidays--in tow at the store. Trust me. Brat kids are a dime a dozen.)

[xchrom]

4. try first to imagine a world where humans treat animals with more respect, rights

and kindness than we do now.

the cart seems to be rolling away from the horse at fast clip.

[nam78_two]

25. Exactly-great post.nt

[The Stranger]

5. The human or animal question is false, only exists in hypothetical, so it is hopelessly flawed.

Worse, it plays upon the most fundamental, basic instincts in humans to preserve themselves. Instincts that are no longer useful any more, and are now, actually extremely destructive. Here is why.

By our nature, we have a tendency to see a threat against another member of our species as a threat to us. This is the result of millions of years of evolution. Even today, why when a bear or an elephant kills a human, even if the human is wholly and unquestionably at fault for the encounter, the animal is killed.

This instinct served us well for a very long time. It allowed us to gather together and defend our species from being preyed upon by others. But now, it serves to destroy other species and to have a disregard for the the ecosystems of the planet and the species that live there.

No species poses a threat to humans. No species preys upon humans. But humans are responsible for the destruction of members of every single other species, and the extinction of thousands of other species, even some entire genuses. Humans overpopulate the planet. Other animal species are going extinct by the hundreds, and the rate of acceleration is increasing.

So posing a question such as, "would you save your child or a baboon" really exploits the evolutionarily-ingrained instinct to protect fellow humans against other species that at one time may have posed a threat to humans.

Where the baboon, for example, poses no threat to humans, by creating the false choice of the human or the baboon, you have tapped into a human instinct that is now endangering the world.

Worse, by posing it in a question regarding animal rights, you have diluted the critical need for humans to suppress this instinct and look for ways of saving other species who once shared the world we are in the process of destroying.

[xchrom]

6. it's really very closely related to the oppression and suppression

that we burden on ''others''.

i.e. marriage inequality{or it's propaganda} is rooted in fear and the war in iraq is rooted in fear.

we commit acts of violence{real and metaphoric} that SUPPOSEDLY preserves something{mostly our own hides}.

[svpadgham]

11. They way you phrase it

I don't think you're separating basic environmentalism from animal rights. I believe the real question is in how we TREAT animals. I am tired so I may be reading it wrong. I do find it ironic that our species gained its collective level of intelligence by eating meat. Well, that's what the Discovery Channel told me.

[Zhade]

15. You seem to have completely avoided my "deserted island" scenario.

NT!

[Rex]

7. The welfare of all life should be paramount. It is the framing of the

question that has always bothered me. WE are animals, we belong right alongside the rest of the kingdom and will either thrive or die depending on THEM, not us.

This is the classic battle between man and nature. Do you kill, in order to survive? Yes. What will we kill in order to survive? Depends on the individual. One thing is for sure, people sure do love killing.

Some people will save human life over a dogs. Some people will save a dogs life over a humans. Strange world but there it is. As animals, we make choices based on what we want, not what is best for the rest of the world.

I'm sure other animals would do the same thing, if they could have evolved a working language and tools.

We just got there first and get to opine on the Internet while Fido still drinks out of the toilet. Does he have less rights than me because he drinks out of the toilet? Hell no! He has way more rights, because he might try to lick my face with that nasty ass tongue! :)

[Az]

8. I am a Speciest

That is I definately harbor a preference for my particular species. Of course thats kind of hardwired into most species.

I place human survival above that of other species. But this does not mean I do not extend other species and critters rights as well. As I suspect that there is more going on behind those beady little eyes than many people give credit for I believe they have rights as well. The same basic kind of rights I desire.

For me the degree to which I will stand up and defend the rights of a critter is tied to how selfaware they may be. For a very long time such a question beyond our knowing. We could only wonder what was going on behind those beady little eyes. But now that we are learning more about brains and identity we are beginning to be able to determine who is who.

I am a carnavore. But I did attempt to go veggie out of ethical consideration. Unfortunately my health tanked as a result of it. I am too picky an eater to survive on veg alone. So I eat meat and am thankful to the critters that died that I may live (all the while swatting the mosquitoes that are trying to eat me).

[The Stranger]

10. But there is no threat to human survival. So that answer doesn't make sense.

And, worse, our species threatens every single other species' survival -- even though doing so is not necessary for the survival of our species.

[Az]

13. Nature sucks

Don't take that statement the wrong way though. Lets think about nature for a moment. Nature is pretty brutal. Its constantly changing things and adapting. Extinction is a regular occurrence. Environments shift and force adaption. Its nasty.

Now as a speciest I seek the survival of my species primarily. Thing is my species is connected to all the other species due to the whole interconnected web o life thing. The environment is dependent on trees and plants which are dependent on bugs and birds which are dependent on bigger critters and so on and so on. The whole thing keeps feeing on itself.

The thing is nature doesn't care if one species disappears or not. It just shifts and adapts. If the environment changed sufficiently it could wipe out the environment necissary for my species to survive in. In fact that does seem to be the path it is on (bolstered by our own actions unfortunately). Every 10,000 years or so nature comes in and pulls a gotcha on life. Screws things over real good.

So nature sucks. In fact what any environmentalist worth their salt is doing is trying to fight against nature. We are trying to paralyze it. Make it so that the environment we like sticks around longer. Thats not nature. Nature changes. Nature kills things.

So the thing of it is that we are a learning species. Its taken us a long time to figure out what impact we have on nature and it on us.

We are also an aggragate social society. That is much of what we learn is held by our social circles. The problem with that is that not all ideas perculate through the society at the same pace. So while people on the cutting edge of an idea embrace it and get it the rest of society takes a while to catch up. Meanwhile the machinations of how our society work are built upon the current aggragate social mindset. Not the cutting edge but rather the middle of the road. With pressure from the rear guard as well as the leading edge pulling in both directions.

With a population such as our we are dependent on the mechanized automated aspects of our society. Distribution and production are simply too inefficient on a local level to accomodate our species. But such systems take time to redirect and major influx of resources. Such things don't happen unless there is a major impetus within the society to do so. And this is where the current aggragate mindset comes into play. Without a critical mass of people supporting a particular notion there simply is not enough momentum to shift the systems that make up our complex social/economic structures.

[Booster]

9. I don't have any answers to any of the questions, but I do know

that if I had to kill something to eat it, I would become a vegan in a NY minute.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

19. Then become a vegan.

Seriously, you are killing animals, you're just having others do the dirty work for you. If you can't handle the dirty work, then you shouldn't be eating it.

[MonkeyFunk]

28. Do you

perform your own dentistry?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

38. Nice strawman.

:eyes:

[MonkeyFunk]

42. Nice non-response

Why is it that you expect omnivores to kill their own food rather than having trained professionals do it? We don't have that expectation for other needs of ours, like medicine, dentristry, auto-repair, etc.

Why do you feel we're morally obligated to perform that ONE act ourselves?

[Critters2]

65. No, but at least I'm in the room when it's being done.

Do you hang out in slaughterhouses?

[nam78_two]

71. !

:) :thumbsup:

I am fairly certain you won't get a response from "monkeyfunk" :eyes:

[Critters2]

79. Just the gentle chirping of our cricket friends. nt

[SteveM]

12. To throw something into the mix,

I read in the Sunday Times (England) just recently that Peter Singer, the most widely-respected philosopher of the animal rights movement, has endorsed primate experimentation (vivisection) where the benefits to humans are clearly demonstrated.

[michreject]

16. Would and animal have a moral objection

in eating a human? Not for a second.

Although i'm not a hunter, I don't have a problem with those who do. I like meat.

[Az]

17. That kind of begs the question

Do animals have the mental capacity to form complex and extended notions of morality? Some seem to be able to extend their sense of community to humans. Dogs for example readily adapt to considering humans to be part of their pack.

The question isn't whether critters will be nice to us. The question is whether animals have a sense of self and feel pain and suffering. If they do and someone inflicts pain and suffering on them is it immoral within our sense of morality?

In the case of eating meat I would say that we should try to move our society away from it using whatever means we can but to expect everyone to get on board immediately is too much to expect. Not everyone has the same metabolism. Not everyone has the same tastes. Not everyone is in the same place morally speaking.

[AlienAvatar]

24. "to expect everyone to get on board immediately is too much

to expect".
So true. I hope we are moving in that direction, but it's a "new morality" of sorts and it's going to take generations to be accepted by society as a whole.

[michreject]

51. I somewhat agree with you

Us carnivores are still waiting for the herbivores to catch up.:evilgrin:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

18. I take the Native American viewpoint on this

I've done sweats and my husband is a pipe carrier in the Lakota tradition, and the vast majority of people doing Native American ceremony eat meat. They judge ALL things to be sacred, including the rocks, the trees, and the animals. The sacredness is found in everything, and lives through everything. You show your gratitutde for the sacrifice made by things to make you be able to live, to have ceremony. For example, when you build a sweatlodge, you have a special ceremony for cutting down the willows that make up the poles of the lodge. You thank the wood used in building the fire, and thank the rocks that are used to heat the lodge. You thank the plants and the animals that you eat in a thank you feast. It is all part of the whole-each thing sacrificing, living, changing, dying, starting the process over. And we see this and are thankful. Ho Metaquiatsun.

[Zhade]

27. Being of NA descent, I appreciate being reminded of this view.

I like the mental process of thanking things, even when they won't hear it - humans in general don't appreciate what they have, I think.

To all: I really appreciate the tone this thread has. It's exactly what I was hoping for. Great stuff!

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Annces]

20. It is simply a matter of respecting the other's life

You don't take it without necessity, and then you give thanks. An animal has a right to its life, and if you take it, there should be weighty reasons and it should be done in a way where the animal does not suffer.


One love
One blood
One life
Youve got to do what you should
One life with each other
Sister
Brothers
One life but we're not the same
We get to carry each other
Carry each other
One

(Johnny Cash)

[porphyrian]

21. As we are animals ourselves, I think the distinction is false and a little arrogant(thanks, church).

Just as we are not better or more important than the other animals, neither are they better or more important than us. There are plenty of creatures, from gigantic to microscopic, that would harm any one of us without a second thought in their struggle for survival. However, I also believe that the mutation which marks our evolutionary edge, our "intelligence," puts us in a unique position - one where we are more responsible for the long term consequences of our actions than other animals. A tiger that hunts and eats the last of an endangered species is merely trying to survive. A human that hunts and eats the last of an endangered species is a selfish criminal whose decision may ultimately destroy life on Earth.

[Zhade]

31. You know, that's a very salient point.

Thanks for mentioning that.

[AlienAvatar]

22. my partial answer

This is a tough one. I'll try to address your last scenario and I'll be brief.

" Or animal testing - suppose your loved one comes down with a disease that has a potential cure, but the cure must still be tested. No humans will volunteer (and of course we cannot force anyone to 'volunteer'). Only animals can be used. Would you support the testing?
Well, with probably the heaviest heart one could have, I'd say proceed with the testing.
I'm aware of all the arguments surrounding this issue, and I detest cruelty to animals in any form. Animals are cheap and "out of the box" ready for medical testing. There isn't much energy being spent looking for an alternative. It's much like how we perceived oil in the middle of the last century. It was cheap and plentiful. Nobody was spending much money looking for an alternative.

Now, if overnight all the animals disappeared, advances in medicine would undoubtedly suffer a sudden and alarming slowdown. How long? I have no idea? But I do know that science and industry would be in a race to be the first to strike gold. New materials would be developed to enable testing to proceed. This would become an new field of scientific and industrial research and advances on top of advances would likely result in materials better and more reliable than the animals once used.

Mankind has the capability to mature, to progress, to make a better world for all, without the need for cruelty to man or beast. Factory farms, animal testing, these things aren't fundamentally necessary for a happy and advancing society. We have them because they're profitable. They're quick, they're cheap, and they're there. It's just like oil. When we're finally pushed to make a real effort to find an alternative, we will. And I don't think it would be too long till we considered oil just as archaic and inefficient as burning wood.

As a species on this planet, let alone the universe, we're still babies. 10,000 yrs ago the Playboy Mansion was a 2 room cave that didn't drip water everywhere. 600 yrs ago slavery was an accepted and profitable business throughout the world. Now it's considered abhorrent and unthinkable to most of the world. Although many thought so at the time, slavery wasn't necessary to maintain society. We found other, better, ways to pick the cotton.









'

[Reterr]

37. Awesome post

My sentiments exactly -we can evolve :) :toast:

[everythingsxen]

23. I am essentially a carnivore, but I do have opinions on AR

As a hypothetical example - you're a vegan, stranded on a deserted island. The only options for survival are water and the fish you manage to catch. No edible plants grow on the island.

Would you at some point decide to eat fish, if it meant life or death?

*If* I were a vegan trapped on a desert island, I would rapidly not be a vegan.

Or animal testing - suppose your loved one comes down with a disease that has a potential cure, but the cure must still be tested. No humans will volunteer (and of course we cannot force anyone to 'volunteer'). Only animals can be used. Would you support the testing?

On animal testing, your question is vague. There are no specifics given. If the question is that one, two, five, or maybe ten animals have to die for testing to save my one loved one, then yes I would say go for it. It would also depend on what we are talking about for testing. If it will be relatively painless for the animal and over quickly, that is a mitigating factor to me as well. Also, is my loved one the only person who has this disease? Or are there hundreds or thousands who have it as well? This question is doubly difficult because my loved one opposes animal testing and would in short order hate me for sacrificing a bunch of animals on the altar of science to save her. You say that no human volunteers are available, but if they were, would one do? If one will save my loved ones life, then I would gladly sacrifice myself.

For me it all comes down to reward vs. suffering. In the case of eating meat, I like eating meat, in fact I need it to live. Without meat I begin developing sores that do not heal, my bones become brittle, my body loses strength. I have tried not eating meat and supplementing but after a few days I start dying. Orcish bodies cannot do a vegan diet. On the other hand I have no desire for my meat to have suffered. I try to get kosher and halal meat, as part of the rules say the animal had to live a good and happy life and be killed humanely. Which is what I believe in.

As for animal testing, it is also suffering vs. reward. If the testing can be done as humanely as possible and will save lives/greatly improve lives, I am all for it. However I strongly oppose animal testing for things that are frivolous at best. (cosmetics etc.) It also comes to numbers. If many thousands of animals will die in horrible pain, to save a handful of lives, I would doubt I would approve of it, depending on the circumstances. On the other hand if the same number of animals dying will save many thousands of humans, I would feel horrible for the animals, but be thankful of their sacrifice that so many others could live.

In most cases though, animal testing is a waste of time. Humans and animals are so different that it is pointless cruelty in many cases.

[Zhade]

36. That's a terrific point about volunteering yourself.

I actually didn't consider that while posting - very good points.

[redacted]

26. Your hypotheticals are absurd. And anyway, why do you care? Really.

Why do you want to get into the head of people who are vegetarians?

I am a veg. Would have been one as a child had I been given the choice. (Although it is not at all a smart idea for small children to be vegan, I am not at all advocating that. And I am myself NOT a vegan.) I didn't become a veg out of any strong moral righteousness, I just didn't want to eat meat. I love animals of all kinds. I enjoy very much running into a pasture of cows when I am riding my bike -- they are not abstract to me. They are often very funny. I have empathy for them.

Eating meat doesn't make much sense from a planetary-management sense either. I can't remember the exact statistics, but it takes way more grain to feed cows to feed humans -- than to just feed grains to humans. So I do think people who eat meat -- should consider limiting their intake.

But I don't make it an issue, most people don't even know that I am a veg. And I started eating fish again last year after a long illness (I just wanted to eat it -- no explanation other than that.)

But when I go visit family in places like Houston where vegetarians are far fewer than here in California. They ask me rude and intrusive questions, that make it seem like my choices are odd. Bizarre. Then they claim "well I was just curious? I just wanted to know."

So basically I think your premise and hypotheicals are absurd and offensive. Yes, most of us would choose ourselves or our family over some other creature -- that's normal. That's called love. And based on my past experiences I truely beleive you are more likely than not being passive aggressive in you motives for this thread.

Sorry, I just don't buy the curious bit. If you were simply curious -- you could google the topic. Not try to draw out a "civil" discussion that obviously and clearly demonstrates you yourself beleive that people who think animals should have some basic rights are nutcases who would starve themselves to death and ask their loved ones to die -- all in the name of cows and chickens.

Please, I am a vegetarian not a monster!

[LeftyMom]

30. I really don't want to touch this thread with a ten foot pole, because it's utter flamebait

but I just want to point out that there's nothing wrong with feeding a child a healthy variety of vegan food. My own kid has been vegan since infancy, happily passes up non-vegan food and is large for his age, healthy and very smart.

[Zhade]

35. How is it flamebait? Because you don't like the questions being asked?

Just because someone doesn't fully accept your philosophy, it doesn't mean asking these questions flamebait.

But thanks for kicking the thread for the people who have taken this thread in the spirit I intended it, at any rate.

[LeftyMom]

40. No, because it's poking a beehive with a stick.

If you really wanted to know the rationale behind AR, you'd ask in a less hostile manner and without using bullshit hypothetical questions.

If you want to know why I make the ethical decisions I do, ask me about them in a realistic context and not in some sort of desert island nonsense.

Simply put, I see the world and the relationship between human and non-human animals very differently than you do, and explaining why would require a lengthy and well thought out explanation. I'm not going to waste the time on somebody who appears to want argument rather than understanding.

[Zhade]

43. I guess the difference is, not everyone sees them as bullshit.

Flawed, perhaps, I can accept that.

But calling my motives into question is pretty much bullshit itself. I'm not obligated to ask the questions in the manner you deem appropriate.

[LeftyMom]

45. No, but you should note the number of AR advocates actually answering your OP

:shrug:

If you really wanted a two sided discussion you went about it wrong.

[Zhade]

46. Okay then, enlighten me - what *exactly* in your opinion was wrong with what I asked?

Have you never asked those types of questions of yourself?

I don't believe you are correct in your conclusions (and I know anyone saying I started this specifically to be flamebait is wrong on that, I mean I know why I started it, no one else does), but help me understand what you found so offensive.

[LeftyMom]

50. It's the goofy hypothetical questions.

First of all, if you're veg*n you hear them all the time to the point where they become a running joke.

More importantly, you can build a hypothetical to produce any answer you want, so it's really not that great a tool for talking about ethical issues. We live in a nuanced world, and we make decisions that impact that world. So if you really want to know what hypothetical people would do on a deserted island I suppose you could watch Lost or Gilligan's Island. If you want to know why people choose to be vegan in the real world, read up on it (there are certainly enough books, blogs and DU posts on the subject) or simply ask in a reasonable way.

[redacted]

55. Thanks for saying that Lefty. I agree.

[Zhade]

56. Still don't see them as unreasonable. Far-fetched, yes.

But the point of hypothetical questions is to explore a question most will never even get close to having to answer.

That you have heard them before in no way excuses the questioning of my motives, but whatever. This response was not hostile, so let's move on.

Now, another question - why is vegan spelled with a *? That's new to me, never seen it before.

[LeftyMom]

62. veg*n= an all encompasing term for vegetarians and vegans. nt

[Zhade]

69. Ah, okay, thanks for clearing that up.

NT!

[everythingsxen]

53. Honestly, LeftyMom makes valid points. Your OP...

was a tad venomous, even if smeared with a little frosting. And yes, this is mostly flamebait, especially with the built-in strawman that assumes that people who support animal rights and are against animal testing value the lives of people over animals.

Here is your OP, with a few words changed and you tell me if you would find it flamebait:

Hello Cthulhu: when does God take precedence?
This is not intended to attack supporters of Hello Cthulhu. This will hopefully be as productive (and personally enlightening) as my last thread, with the same level of honest back-and-forth.

The question I pose is a tough one, I imagine, for HC supporters - at what point does God take precedence over Cthulhu?

This question is prompted by the GD item regarding the decoding of the Anti-Christ's true plan, and the (to me) bewildering stance of a very few DUers that it doesn't matter.

These posters make me ask the above question, because their stance makes me wonder of there ever comes a time when Hello Cthulhu takes a back seat to God's Plan.

As a hypothetical example - you're a Hello Cthulhuist, about to die. The only options for survival are praying to God. No science will save you.

Would you at some point decide to pray to God, if it meant life or death?

Or going to church - suppose your loved one comes down with a disease that has a cure, but the cure requires the death of Hello Cthulhu. You would have to go to church, pray to God and destroy Hello Cthulhu. Would you support the genuflection?

More important than "yes" or "no" is "why" you answer as you do, and your reasoning. I'm really trying to get into your head, so be as forthright as possible - I want to learn what motivates your stance on this question.

Thanks in advance for a (hopefully) civil, interesting thread!

While it is a silly example, it still illustrates the motivations of the question asker, since the way it is framed is very clearly against the intended audience.

[Zhade]

57. Actually, your example makes no real sense to me.

Being an atheist, I don't believe in any of that supernatural nonsense.

(Now THAT'S flamebait-y! But true.)

[everythingsxen]

58. I kind of figured you were,

which still makes it just as valid. It also makes the extreme hypotheticals just as obviously absurd.

Would you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior if it meant the difference between life and death?

[Zhade]

61. Of course not - unless someone finally presented evidence he existed.

And that Christianity was accurate in its conclusions.

[everythingsxen]

67. Exactly. Which is what makes your hypotheticals so flawed

They exist in a vacuum with no sort of basis of what testing will be done, how, and for what.

The question "would you do animal experiments to save a family members life?" is very comparable to the question "would you accept Jesus to save your own life?"

The first question lacks any definition to the nature of the experiments or what disease it saves the family member from or how long they will live afterward. These are all pretty important parameters.

[Zhade]

74. Okay, that's a fair point - I was way too nebulous on the criteria.

I'd like to state, for the record, that I was negligent not out of malice, but thanks to posting quickly while at work.

I'd also like to correct a misconception you gained from my 'venomous' (venomous? really?) OP, which is that I feel AR people value animals over people.

I don't. I phrased it as such (perhaps poorly) out of the sincere desire to know how dedicated people are to AR when it comes down to human versus animal.

Truth is, I expect some to bail at that juncture, and some to stick with it, and I wanted to know their reasoning behind putting an animal first.

It seems a lot of people think my hypothetical suck. I can live with that; I'm hardly perfect, after all, as I'm only human.

:)

[Critters2]

78. You wanted to know how dedicated people are to AR

when it comes down to human versus animal? Hmmm....Maybe the way to find out would have been to ask
"How dedicated are you to AR when it comes down to human versus animal?"

Nice, succinct, relatively flamebait-free. Now, why do you suppose you decided not to just ask a simple question? Me, I have a theory.

[Zhade]

83. Of course. Join the crowd of people who DON'T know what I intended...

...but pretend they do.

I really don't care at this point. You're too abusive for me to give a damn about your opinion.

[Critters2]

90. Backatcha. Me, I'm mildly abusive on a computer screen.

You pay people to abuse animals in real life. You're too abusive for me to give a damn about your opinion.

[everythingsxen]

80. Perhaps venomous was a tad strong...

I meant it not so much in a direct vitriolic way, but rather that the question itself seemed 'poisoned'. It seems reasonable on the surface, but the way it is phrased seems intent on trapping Vegans/AR into committing themselves to absurd extremes.

It was precisely the phrasing of it that led me to say venomous, or as I should have more correctly said poisonous, because it rather clearly seems to aim the reader toward the conclusion that AR people value human lives over animals.

:)

[Zhade]

88. I guess, since veg*ns (hey, I learned something new today) do get trapped...

...it makes sense that anything questioning their philosophy can appear to read as a trap, if they're already on the defensive (and I phrase my questions poorly).

For that bit of misunderstanding, I am sorry.

[redacted]

54. That's great. I didn't want to be accused of advocating it because there

where a family of "hard-core" vegans in the mid-80s basically starved their very young children by not giving them all the nutrients children needed. I beleive they were on macro-biotic diet .

It was child abuse, the kids were obviously sick. But the parents refused to yield to what they thought was the "perfect" diet. I just didn't want some unknowing soul to stop giving their child fortified milk.

[Zhade]

34. Well, despite your hostility and intimation that I'm a liar, I still value your input.

I ask because I care about knowledge, and I care about knowledge because it's what drives me.

I've considered becoming a vegetarian, and have not done so. Asking vegetarians the hard questions I ask myself isn't passive-aggressive. Sorry you disagree, but thanks for contributing anyway.

[redacted]

59. I didn't call you a liar, I said you were passive aggressive. There is an

enormous gulf of self-awareness in the middle.

How you ask is as important as why you ask.

How you asked was completely insulting to my intelligence. How you asked was prejudicial in it's content and tone.

And asking for civility after that -- well, that focuses my point. If you hadn't known that you were asking something in a way that would piss people off -- why praytell did you feel you had to ask for civility?

Rather, you probably know or should know that asking from a place of honest inquisitiveness will get you no ill will. And asking in the way that is insulting, well . . . you get what you got.

That's it -- no more from me on this.

[Zhade]

85. And I never said you CALLED me a liar. But you did, in fact, suggest it.

"Sorry, I just don't buy the curious bit."

I said I was curious.

Therefore, you are calling that statement untrue, and I really don't appreciate my honesty being impugned. If I say I'm curious - I'm curious.

[BikeWriter]

39. When a lump of soy moos and bleeds I'll switch.

[nam78_two]

29. There are many serious issues of animal abuse in this country

and around the world. We kill a billion+ animals in this country every year. The majority of these are raised in the disgusting,inhumane environs of these huge factory farms and CAFOs with no basic standards at all. They are treated like inanimate objects, handled as such, transported in horrific conditions and often killed very inhumanely. Not a shred of respect is accorded to these animals from the minute they are born to the instant they die.

Hypotheticals like " If I am on an island what will I eat etc." are interesting enough in their own way, but ultimately an exercise in navel-gazing.

There are some things most humane people veg. or non-veg. can agree on and I think priority wise those are the most important things. We do not even have a law in this country that says that poultry have to be stunned before they are killed. It is shocking to me that such a BASIC, minimal measure is not required by law in a so-called civilised country.

Factory farming is familiar to many on this board and I think that should be the target of a serious and sustained campaign by all progressives. Animal abuse is rampant in this country-let us first move towards raising the extremely low standards that are the norm for farm animals in this country before we get to questions like "If you were about to be raped by a 300lb gorilla would you consider killing it" ;).
Sorry, but sometimes these discussions get so far away from the reality of the situation of animals in our country :shrug:

[Zhade]

48. I am very opposed to factory farming.

On this, vegetarians and I strongly agree!

[Critters2]

73. Veg*ns more strongly, though. nt

[Zhade]

94. In your opinion.

You don't have a clue how strongly I oppose it, so you actually can't say one way or the other.

(Unless you can read my mind. Which you can't.)

[Critters2]

96. If you eat meat in this country, you support factory farming

And it's hard to both support and oppose something at the same time.

[The Straight Story]

33. I value a human life much more than that of other animals

Does not mean I want to see other life forms treated poorly though of course.

[HuffleClaw]

44. erm, always ?

i cannot imagine a circumstance in which the welfare of an animal would ever be more important than that of a human.

[Zhade]

47. Lassie vs. Hitler.

So there's SOME circumstances. :)

[StrongbadTehAwesome]

49. Are you trying to ask those "very few DUers," or anyone?

I do think you're being a bit unnessarily inflammatory, but I'll try to answer in the overall spirit of the question.

Most value for all.

That's the way I see it. I don't understand the point of raising crops to feed animals to feed people, when you could just raise crops to feed people. I don't see the point of a diet that leads, over decades, to chronic disease. I don't think it's right to kill just to have one particular type of food you find tasty when there are SO MANY good foods out there that don't require killing. I don't think it's right to test the safety of a laundry detergent by seeing how much a group of rabbits can ingest before half of them die (google LD50). Factory farms in particular are beyond atrocious, as they're essentially concentration camps for animals, and pollute horrifically to boot (see the Rolling Stones story if you haven't already: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12840743/porks_dirty_secret_the_nations_top_hog_producer_is_also_one_of_americas_worst_polluters) I don't have much of a problem with hunters, though.

Ultimately, I don't support the exploitation of animals in general to benefit humans in general, especially when there are other easy alternatives. In your first bizzare-ass scenario, I'd eat the fish. Well, actually, I PERSONALLY would die as I'm highly allergic to nearly all kinds of fish, but I wouldn't have a problem eating fish so to save my life if I weren't - that's not a situation in which other options are readily available to me. In your second scenario, why the heck wouldn't the loved one who had the disease volunteer for the "testing" themselves? That happens all the time today in the later phases of medical research.

[Skip Intro]

52. To answer your question -

In the example you give, the island where you have to eat fish or die - an extreme example to be sure - my guess is the survival instinct would take over and yes, fish would be eaten. I'm sure if I were to die or catch and eat a fish, I'd eventually catch and eat a fish.

But, and I'm not attacking, most arguments against animals rights center on such extreme examples. Man does not need meat to live. I think killing animals may well be ethically, or morally, or whatever word you want to use, wrong. And I'm not sure where our "right" to take an animal's life comes from. Is it just self-evident? It's not to me.

But my big problem, way before we get to whether it is ever acceptable to kill (or mistreat) an animal, is the current widespread, not-a-matter-of-survival, treatment of animals in this nation. The factory farms, the fur farms, the puppy and kitten mills, the cosmetic labs - where a torturous life is followed my a merciless slaughter. Millions and millions of animals every day, thinking, feeling animals, forced to endure endless days and nights in horrible conditions only to be killed in the most brutal, painful ways, all so that some oblivious "superior" being can have his bucket of extra crispy.

These are the things at the center of the debate for me. Its going on right now. And well before we try to decide whether, in extreme circumstances, it is ok to take one life to sustain another, we should all realize the more pressing needs of the brutal day to day treatment of millions of animals. I know, KNOW, we don't have the right, or are in anyway justified, in allowing this mass cruelty to continue.

[WhollyHeretic]

63. If you were starving would you steal some bread?

If you said yes then does that make thievery moral?

Context matters tremendously for questions of morality. Limited scenario hypotheticals like these really do little to further moral debates.

The direction of the questions also seems to be going for what I call an "argument of perfection." Which is when people argue that another persons views aren't 100% consistent or that they don't follow them 100%. People use this argument constantly when talking about animal rights, the environment and a number of other things. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try just because we can't achieve a platonic perfect world.

[jgraz]

66. Depends on the human, depends on the animal

My pet vs some random human? Sorry, my pet's gonna win.

Cockroach vs George Bush? Say hello to my new buddy, Roachie.

[Critters2]

70. LOL!! Hiya, Roachie!! Pull up a chair!

:hi:

[Zhade]

92. Best response on the thread!

:)

[HornBuckler]

72. A bit off topic

I'd eat the fish and commence the testing.

Why do some vegetarians refer to themselves as such and still eat fish?

Why do people ignore the other microscopic animals they kill by the billions daily?

Fruits and vegetables are living organisms - they die when you eat them.

life feeds on life

(This isn't intended for the OP just my 2 cents)

[Critters2]

75. Most plants either live out their natural lives and are harvested after

they die (as in the case of corn, soybeans, wheat, etc), or produce fruit annually but continue to live--to produce more fruit--after the harvest. Your statemet will be a vaild response to veg*nism when people start eating cows who've died of old age.

Oh, and because "food animals" eat more plants than veg*ns, meat-eaters still cause more destruction of plant life.

[HornBuckler]

84. That's a good point

But the vegetables still die - the cows and chickens still die. As long as they are treated well while they are living, vegetable or animal, something is going to eat it. I would even be open minded about eating human flesh honestly. I don't think I would condone people farms for food, but I don't think we should remove them from the food chain entirely either.

[Critters2]

87. No. Plants die. Cows and chickens are killed. See the difference? nt

[HornBuckler]

93. No -

When you pull a carrot from the ground and eat it - you've just 'killed' said carrot.

[Critters2]

98. Actually, the carrot root is edible after the plant has died

So, it is not necessary to kill a carrot to eat it. Again, do you eat pigs who've died of old age?

[everythingsxen]

76. I would have to say that...

the fruits and vegetables are not sentient and do not seem to register pain and suffering. That being said, I can kind of understand why some people are opposed to having an animal born into a lab environment, tortured it's entire short, miserable life just to find out if the latest line of perfume will cause blindness if injected into it's optic nerves. I can also understand why people might not want fifty chickens to be stuffed into a single cage where they suffocate and peck each other to death and generally suffer for their lives until they are big enough to be cut open while still alive and made into low price food because treating them humanely might cut into a corporations profits.

[HornBuckler]

77. I can see your points

I am not for treating anything inhumanely. I just think some folks tend to go way overboard on the veg thing.

[Critters2]

81. Define "way overboard". nt

[everythingsxen]

86. I find most of the ultra-vegan movement..

to be a bit off for my tastes. (I am referring to the extremists who do not use any animal products, at all, and think that anything derived from animals is bad. So no milk, no honey, etc.)

However they are a very small minority.

I believe animals should be used for what we can get out of them, however they should be treated very well and not made to suffer for marginal improvement of our own lives.

[HornBuckler]

91. Agreed! n/t

[LeftyMom]

97. Huh?

There's no such thing as an ultra-vegan. People who don't use dairy, honey or any other animal products are simply vegan. Those who do use those things are vegetarians or omnivores. There is no veganism-lite, no shades of veganism. Either you don't use animal products and you're vegan, or you do and you're not.

[HornBuckler]

101. Do you think one could argue that there really is no such

food source that isn't a product of some animal's intervention?

(just being an ass)

but without bees to pollinate and ladybugs to eat aphids and earthworms to hollow and soften the earth - well you get my drift

[nam78_two]

82. ...

Why do people ignore the other microscopic animals they kill by the billions daily?

Do you really see no difference between a cow or a pig and a bacteriophage. Yes I know where this type of discussion goes-now the next thing would be "Its hypocritical of vegans to kill bacteria when they claim to want to avoid harming all living things". I usually avoid that type of debate because it has no practical value and is more aimed at a "gotcha" than anything constructive.

But this particular one seems to repeated around here so often I thought I would respond.
First of all, yes any living thing is going to destroy other living things in the process of living. However, it is worth while to try and minimize the amount of pain one causes while living.

As I said upthread, these types of "gotcha" arguments are aimed at taking these discussions in a very pointless and frivolous direction when there are serious humane and environmental considerations tied up with this issue that should be important to all progressives.

[HornBuckler]

89. I honestly don't mean it to be 'gotcha'

I come from the perspective that everything dies and gets eaten. Minimize the suffering of other creatures I agree with, but I do think some folks play god with what is more deserving of life.

like the veg folks that say they're veg but eat fish. Fish not cute enough? That kinda stuff just bugs the hell out of me.

[nam78_two]

95. I totally agree about how "cute" animals are treated vs. "not cute".nt

[Critters2]

100. People who eat fish are NOT veg*n, no matter what they call themselves

Stop throwing this nonsense at real veg*ns.

[Dorian Gray]

99. I suspect

that you and I are on a similar wavelength in this topic, Zhade, but I really look forward to this discussion and hope it is a productive one. Very interesting topic, and hopefully it won't devolve into a flame war!

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

102. I'm going to lock this.

Do not post "flame bait" discussion topics. While there is no clear line regarding what constitutes flame bait, the moderators have the authority to shut down threads which they consider too rhetorically hot, too divisive, too extreme, or too inflammatory. Please use good judgment when starting threads; inflammatory rhetoric does not normally lead to productive discussion.

Do not start a new topic in order to continue a flame war from another discussion thread.

best,
wakemeupwhenitsover
DU Moderator