• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

Animal Rights: Freedom vs. Frying them up?

Temper Tantrum

TRIBE Member
We live in a society that prides itself on equality..In these times, it is largely unacceptable to treat a black man differently solely because of the colour of his skin, the days of slavery are over. It would be inconceivable to use Jews for medical testing as the Natzis did during world war two, because we practice religious tolerance and each man is equal no matter what his philosophical beliefs. Gay violence is forbidden by the law and the constitution, no matter what sexual preference a man or woman possesses they are no less or better then anyone else. We celebrate our differences and each man and woman are believed to be equal because of some ‘common humanity’ shared by simply being human. A few hundred years ago, or even a few decades ago, because of the perceptions and attitudes that were prevalent at the time, this equality was impossible

I just finished reading "Animal Liberation" By Peter Singer, and his theory of equality is an interesting one. He argues that the basic principle of equality MUST be extended to all other species because their suffering is no different then our own. All living beings have the capacity too suffer. Yet he does acknowledge the differences of course between animals and humans (even terms discrimination against other animals 'speciesm' ) but he says that while there are important differences between humans and other animals these differences must give rise to some differenes in the right each have. But this is no barrier to extending the principle of equality to nonhuman animals.

For example, feminists argue that women have to right to an abortion without questions. What's the point in a man having a 'right' to an abortion since he can't have one? Similarly we'd never want dogs to have the RIGHT to vote because they can't vote. Yet we all -share- the ability to suffer.

Why therefore should the suffering of an animal be put above the suffering of a mentally challenged human (according to Singer) except for discrimination of species?

Would one be willing to perform medical experiemtns on a mentally challenged person to save the lives potentially of other humans? What makes this any different then that of an animal? If a being suffers , is there a moral justification for NOT taking that suffering itno consideration?

As singer puts it "If we have learnt anything from the liberation movements, we should have learnt how difficult it is to be aware of latent prejudices in oru attitudes to particular groups until this particular prejudice is pointed out"

Essentially he argues that it may seem absurd that dogs shuold have the same basic equality of condition as humans, but two hundred years ago would this not have seemed just as absurd for a white slave owner to a black slave?

What ARE animal rights? Do they have any?
What about factory farming? the conditions they live under?
Medical testing? Cosmetic testing?

What do you think?

~allie~
 

SUNKIST

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Temper Tantrum
Why therefore should the suffering of an animal be put above the suffering of a mentally challenged human (according to Singer) except for discrimination of species?

Would one be willing to perform medical experiemtns on a mentally challenged person to save the lives potentially of other humans? What makes this any different then that of an animal? If a being suffers , is there a moral justification for NOT taking that suffering itno consideration?

just because someone is mentally challenged, it does not mean they are beyond the ability to suffer to some or any extent. i don't understand this argument.
 

Rosey

TRIBE Member
animals are for eating. any species of animal (other than humans) that i can kill, by any means, is below me on the food chain and therefore food, if edible.
 

Temper Tantrum

TRIBE Member
Re: Re: Animal Rights: Freedom vs. Frying them up?

Originally posted by SUNKIST
just because someone is mentally challenged, it does not mean they are beyond the ability to suffer to some or any extent. i don't understand this argument.
Sorry I should be more clear on that. I'm playing devil's advocate and putting out Singers argument there. For the record this it
not my opinion but Peter Singer's . Essentially he is saying that there can be no justification for putting the suffering of an animal above the suffering of someone who is mentally challenged because they both have limited 'potential' in comparison to regular humans and they both DO suffer.
 

SUNKIST

TRIBE Member
I knew you were just stating his opinions allie's.. :)

hmm...well we can't very well turn against our families, just because they are mentally challeneged. wouldnt that be a form of genocide..to kill and test on one another cuz they werent as capable. that doesnt make any sense.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

HappyJR

TRIBE Member
Well...

First of all...

If we can't kill other speceis... then... how do we eat?

Well... you could say, be vegetarians. But... what about plants.

Can't they suffer?

They're alive, and they struggle for survival like any other life form.

My logic is.

It's natural to kill and eat other species.

Animals do it to each other and so there's no reason not to do it too... Also, I say it's not speciesist because the only reason we don't eat humans is because the same reason we don't eat tiger and prefer sheep... cause they fight back less... wich is a purely tactical decision.

As far as animal labour... That can be considered slavery, but it can also be good, depending on how you look at it.

If you as a human see animals as working for you, then they are slaves, you don't respect them and make them do the dirty work and that is speciesist, and wrong. On the other hand, if you see animals as working with you, in the way say... a mentaly chalanged person might work a field with the others, and if they are treated with respect and as equals, then there's nothing wrong with that.

On the other hand, sacrificing animal lives because of the belif that they somehow have less value then human lives is speciesist in every possible way.
 

Temper Tantrum

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by SUNKIST
I knew you were just stating his opinions allie's.. :)

hmm...well we can't very well turn against our families, just because they are mentally challeneged. wouldnt that be a form of genocide..to kill and test on one another cuz they werent as capable. that doesnt make any sense.
he's not saying we should at all. He's just trying to put into perspective. (ie if your willing to test on animals, what logical moral argument prevents you from testing on mentally challenged individuals? ) Singer teaches at Princeton now I believe. Very controversial guy, but interesting philosopher non the less.

I just meant to start a debate about animal rights
my befuddled brain should stay away from scholarly manifestos this late at night :cool:

~allie~
 

Deus

TRIBE Member
Ethics...

I have a split opinion on this issue. I don't believe that animals should be made to suffer for any reason. They too have feelings. Although not cognitive, they can feel fear, pain, and suffering. I believe that humans are in no way superior to any other animal on this planet. We are all inhabiting the same environments, the same continents and the same planet. I think animals have a cognitive ability, although more limited, and a line cannot be drawn on what has and has no rights.
The idea of universal human rights, is a fairly new idea however (I believe it was put forward by Hagel, although the Ancient Greeks had made some mention of it.) Therefore, if we are all equal, humans and animals, then either we all have universal rights or we all don't.
Most of us believe in the idea of universal human rights. We are not hunter-gatherers anymore, and we cannot live by hunting down wild animals. Our growing populations have lead us to domesticate animals for the purpose of slaughtering and eating them.
Now, someone will probably come along and argue that we are overpopulating anyway, but since everyone has the right to life, how can we not feed some people and make them suffer, just because we're overpopulating. Wouldn't that be just as cruel.
I myself study biology, and do things to animals that some of you probably don't want to hear about, and I am often bothered by this very issue. Using animals as subjects will allow humans to live better lives. It's like where the road of ethics splits. Do I save the animals or do I save the humans...
 

Mr_Furious

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Rosey
animals are for eating. any species of animal (other than humans) that i can kill, by any means, is below me on the food chain and therefore food, if edible.
RIGHT ON BRUTHA!

PREACH IT!

it says so in the bible...animals were made for us to eat.
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

DJAlchemy

TRIBE Promoter
we have two sets of teeth. One set is for tearing and ripping, the second for grinding and chewing. The first set is primarily useful for meat. So really we were designed to eat both animals and plants.

if you want to just eat plants, bon appetite! :D

Peace & love them mid-rare-Tbones. D
 

Gunark

TRIBE Member
Re: Ethics...

Originally posted by Deus
I have a split opinion on this issue. I don't believe that animals should be made to suffer for any reason. They too have feelings. Although not cognitive, they can feel fear, pain, and suffering. I believe that humans are in no way superior to any other animal on this planet. We are all inhabiting the same environments, the same continents and the same planet. I think animals have a cognitive ability, although more limited, and a line cannot be drawn on what has and has no rights.
The idea of universal human rights, is a fairly new idea however (I believe it was put forward by Hagel, although the Ancient Greeks had made some mention of it.) Therefore, if we are all equal, humans and animals, then either we all have universal rights or we all don't.
Most of us believe in the idea of universal human rights. We are not hunter-gatherers anymore, and we cannot live by hunting down wild animals. Our growing populations have lead us to domesticate animals for the purpose of slaughtering and eating them.
Now, someone will probably come along and argue that we are overpopulating anyway, but since everyone has the right to life, how can we not feed some people and make them suffer, just because we're overpopulating. Wouldn't that be just as cruel.
I myself study biology, and do things to animals that some of you probably don't want to hear about, and I am often bothered by this very issue. Using animals as subjects will allow humans to live better lives. It's like where the road of ethics splits. Do I save the animals or do I save the humans...

Hey I'm in the same boat as you.... I'm majoring in a field responsible for probably the worst kinds of animal torture in all the sciences (neuroscience/cog. sci), yet I consider myself a pretty good person as far as animal rights are concerned. I don't eat meat, I'm nice to my cats, I don't wear leather... hell I'm the kind of person that feels bad killing a fly.

But on the other hand I find myself constantly engrossed in knowledge built -- for the most part -- on the backs of screaming, crying, quivering animals. On a daily basis I read studies that would make most people's skin creep. Anything from testing just how much sensory deprevation a baby monkey can take before it grows up retarded, to cutting various nerves on live, conscious, unaesthetized puppies, to see which part of their body stops working.

As much as all this stuff disturbs me, I know very well that we could't possibly have learned even a fraction of what we know had we done it the hard way.

So in the end I feel like a hypocrite....

But then again, if you get right down to it, morality really is relative. Where we draw the line between "human" and "animal" is completely arbitrary (as in allie's example with retarded people -- or how about "human vegetables", with no real brain activity whatsoever?)

Knowing this, my decision not to eat meat but yet support animal testing isn't really in conflict. These are all simply arbitrary judgement calls. The only thing that makes them seem absolute is the cultural or social norm. And I don't think we have to go into why social norms can't be taken as absolute (or even meaningful).
 

nusty

TRIBE Member
can we fry allie? mmmm, but lets faten her up a bit first. perhaps we'll throw in a side order of rack of lamb to make the meal.

recipe for cooking allie:
grow a tree,
when tree gets big, cut it and make a board (oak is best),
Go to store and buy 1 cup of rosmary, 1/2 cup of clover and a teaspoon of salt.
Cut allie up in strips,
place strips on board,
season in spices for 1/2 hour,
place in oven at 450 degrees C,
cook for 1 hour then drop temp to 275C for another 30 minutes,
Remove,
Throw out allie and eat oak board. :D

It take a while to prepare but if we start now it will be worth it by xmas next year!

Sorry allie, its late. But I do love ya!;)
 

Maui

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Rosey
animals are for eating. any species of animal (other than humans) that i can kill, by any means, is below me on the food chain and therefore food, if edible.
Really? I'd like to see that. Tell me how many animals you yourself have killed or could kill? With bare hands? Knife? Gun?
And how did/would it make you feel? You'll need a mighty big saw to cut through those bones don't forget. And removing the guts and intestines...no problem i guess. Got a good nose plug and goggles?
Its easy for most people to sit in the comfort of their home and eat prepackaged food. Its another to kill your own consistently and maintain your sanity and appetite.
I guarantee that if anyone saw how the animals were treated in meat factories they would be disgusted and upset by it, unless they weren't "human".

Peace,

Robbie
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

nusty

TRIBE Member
I work in a meat processing plant. I'm on the ground floor working in cattle at the kitchener plant.

I still eat meat. Hell when no ones looking I even nibble a bit from the racks.
 

Maui

TRIBE Member
Nusty, I didn't mean processing plants. I meant slaughterhouses.


Originally posted by DJAlchemy
we have two sets of teeth. One set is for tearing and ripping, the second for grinding and chewing. The first set is primarily useful for meat. So really we were designed to eat both animals and plants.

if you want to just eat plants, bon appetite! :D

Peace & love them mid-rare-Tbones. D
No, humans are not meant to eat meat. We compare much more closely to herbivores than meat eating animals. Humans are clearly not designed to digest and ingest meat.
Meat-eaters: have claws
Herbivores: no claws
Humans: no claws
Meat-eaters: have no skin pores and perspire through the tongue
Herbivores: perspire through skin pores
Humans: perspire through skin pores
Meat-eaters: have sharp front teeth for tearing, with no flat molar teeth for grinding
Herbivores: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding
Humans: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding
Meat-eaters: have intestinal tract that is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass through quickly
Herbivores: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.
Humans: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.
Meat-eaters: have strong hydrochloric acid in stomach to digest meat
Herbivores: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater
Humans: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater
Meat-eaters: salivary glands in mouth not needed to pre-digest grains and fruits.
Herbivores: well-developed salivary glands which are necessary to pre-digest grains and fruits
Humans: well-developed salivary glands which are necessary to pre-digest grains and fruits
Meat-eaters: have acid saliva with no enzyme ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Herbivores: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Humans: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains

We should live in harmony with Earth not conquer it, or the animals. The other members of the National Football League say I'm in the minority, but they are. A majority of the world is vegetarian.
--Former Pittsburgh Steeler and NY Giant football Player Glenn Scolnick

Peace,

Robbie
 

Mr_Furious

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Maui


Really? I'd like to see that. Tell me how many animals you yourself have killed or could kill? With bare hands? Knife? Gun?
And how did/would it make you feel? You'll need a mighty big saw to cut through those bones don't forget. And removing the guts and intestines...no problem i guess. Got a good nose plug and goggles?
Its easy for most people to sit in the comfort of their home and eat prepackaged food. Its another to kill your own consistently and maintain your sanity and appetite.
I guarantee that if anyone saw how the animals were treated in meat factories they would be disgusted and upset by it, unless they weren't "human".

Peace,

Robbie
i've never actually done or seen anything like that unless you count fish.

My friends have skinned and gutted their own animals like rabbits after going on hunting trips. Some of my other friends used to play around with their freshly diesected pig fetus' in biology by throwing around body parts.
Seeing anything like that would gross me out, but it wouldn't take long for me to become desensitized.
At one point we did have to kill and skin, and gut all our animals in order to eat.
At ont point having a vegetarian diet was not even an option because it wasn't available at the time.
Being vegetarian isn't going to stop the killing of animals
I happen to like meat
I happen I love veal even despite the fact that they bind them at the legs at a really young age and then proceed to tenderzie them while they're alive just because the blood flows better.
I don't care.....
I like Veal


"when I grow up, I'm going to BOVINE university!"

 

Gunark

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Mr_Furious

I happen I love veal even despite the fact that they bind them at the legs at a really young age and then proceed to tenderzie them while they're alive just because the blood flows better.
I don't care.....
I like Veal



You almost sound like you're proud of this.

No matter how much you "like" veal, the pain and suffering of an animal is not a fair price to pay for some minor satisfaction of your acquired taste.

You know, one of the things that's supposed to make humans "better" than animals (and gives us the right to kill and eat them by choice) is our ability to be compassionate. But if you give up that quality, you give up part of your humanity..... blindly following your pleasure impulses is something animals do.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Mr_Furious

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Gunark



You almost sound like you're proud of this.

No matter how much you "like" veal, the pain and suffering of an animal is not a fair price to pay for some minor satisfaction of your acquired taste.
'perception is reality'

You know, one of the things that's supposed to make humans "better" than animals (and gives us the right to kill and eat them by choice) is our ability to be compassionate.
so what you're saying is....if If I felt more compassion for the calf, that would make it more valid? remember...you did say we had the *right* to kill and eat them.....

you give up that quality, you give up part of your humanity..... blindly following your pleasure impulses is something animals do.
there are many things that make us human....like opposable thumbs.

Just because some of us like to do what we want, doesn't make us all sociopaths
 

Maui

TRIBE Member
The argument you bring up is a good one Temper Tantrum.
It is this belief that people base their defence on being superior to animals. That being the fact that animals are not sentient beings and therefore inferior to us. But chimps are very intelligent beings, much more so than a "retard" (sorry not sure what the politically correct term is now). So a mentally challenged human must therefore be inferior to all us other humans and available for testing and eating no?

I'm gonna stop with this post cause i could post an argument to almost every one of the posts so far. But i have to do that on a daily basis to all the dimwits who challenge my eating habits.
I think when you take into account all the reasons together it is pretty hard to condone eating animals. I'll give one example for each.
Moral: Musk (as in the perfume) is derived from a cat in china used solely for this purpose. They are hung upside down and heated to some ridiculous temperature. Their testicals are then scraped to gather the musk. This is done until the cats die from the heat.

Environmental: 50% of the water consumed in the United States is used on livestalk. But thats ok they are starting talks on buying, oops i mean taking our fresh water.

World Hunger: The worlds cattle alone consume more food than the entire human population requires.
Oh and Temper Tantrum, if your interested in moral philosophy check out the book "Applied Ethics" which is a collection of essays gathered by Singer. The one called "judgement Day" by Louis Pascal is quite an interesting read. He basically provides a valid argument that we are guilty of murder by not helping the starving.

Health: Meat causes impotence. Ouch, that one's gotta hurt eh guys!

One final question:
So when the aliens arrive on earth and they are "superior" to us and begin torturing and eating us do we change our opinion then?
I encourage anyone who is of a compassionate and intellectual nature to do some research on this subject. I promise you will at the least have knowledge and be able to dissect the meat/dairy/research industry and government propogana.
Giving up meat is the best decision ive made in my life. I feel so much more mentally and physically better because of it.

If anyone would like assistance finding info or has questions feel free to email me.
I'll leave you with a couple quotes.

"If [man] is not to stifle his human feelings, he must practice kindness towards animals, for he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals. "
--Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." --Albert Einstein

Thankyou for reading if you made it this far.

Peace,

Robbie
 

Gunark

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Mr_Furious

Just because some of us like to do what we want, doesn't make us all sociopaths
The defining characteristic of being a sociopath is a lack of empathy or remorse for your actions.

Anyway, if doing "what you want" hurts noone, then by all means, indulge. But if it causes agony and pain (and I'm not just using these words for dramatic effect here) then you may want to reconsider.

Hedonism is sooo 2300 years ago :)
 

PosTMOd

Well-Known TRIBEr
Veal aren't bound and beaten.

Bullshit.

Anybody with a half a brain knows that meat is more tender if the animal doesn't have cortisone, etc., flowing around when it is killed. (Which is why hunters like deer to be unaware that they are being hunted, and they want to kill with ONE shot, so no nasty hormones make the meat tougher)

Thus, nowadays, in slaughterhouses, the cows and pigs are tickled just before getting the bolt shot into their skull.

Not a job I would want. Tickling animals is tough... can't always tell when they are giggling.

tickle, tickle.... *BANG*....
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
Top