|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Nov 7, 2005 11:45:20 GMT
Yes we have been having our ethics lectures again. So what do we think of animal rights, taking into being that the latest scientific classification of humans has placed us in with the fungi due to genetic variation we can include the rights of the embryo. Being a biochemist really does mean that I may have to do some pretty horrific stuff to some poor thing (human included) in the name of science. What does this forum have in the form of opinions towards the issue, does the end justify the means, are they intrinstically below us/above us? Are we equal with our four legged freinds? When does "life" begin and how should rights be determined. I dont know how well anyone follows UK news but the below demonstates how far some are willing to go! news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/4176094.stmIn addition a bit more material is from a marxist thinker, cannot remmmember the name but he said that our rights have come through our struggles through history and that as animals have never struggled for rights they as such should not be given them. Thought and Opinions.
|
|
|
Post by The Red Factions on Nov 11, 2005 1:27:47 GMT
Socialism is about humanism and compassion. As socialists, we ought to extend our circle of compassion to all other living beings and creatures on our dear Mother Earth. We are all products of nature.
We can think, medidate and reason and are mentally superiour to animals. We therefore have a duty to protect them because we can. Humans shouldn't abuse animals. We should work with nature and it's animals, not force it and them into submission. The general promotion of animal rights and it's discussion during party congresses falls well within the socialist construction.
This partially brings up the issue of vegetarianism - anybody amongst you who are vegetarians?
|
|
|
Post by Jako on Nov 11, 2005 11:38:35 GMT
Moi.
|
|
|
Post by The Red Factions on Nov 11, 2005 15:15:56 GMT
Ah yes, I knew about that. And the slogan "extend the circle of compassion" is one frequently brought upon amongst european green parties and in Sweden too, but it hasn't had a real breakthrough.
Now, does eating meat consititute a violation of animal rights?
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Nov 11, 2005 18:38:52 GMT
Quite right, due to loss of energy along a system (I.e further from the sun) land growing crops can produce more than land growing animals. The eating of animals would be against their rights, but unfortunately its in our nature to eat meat and remmember if that cow had the chance he would eat you and your family mercylessly! :.0 More seriously it is likely to continue but if it must then I always hope that it is done is the best possible manner, for example go free range, organic. If the animals must eventually be used for food then at least give them a good quality of life while they are here!
|
|
|
Post by Jako on Nov 11, 2005 22:16:53 GMT
Danitoria: No I don't eat fish.
My thoughts on vegetarianism: Anyone who considers themselves to be a left-wing radical should question and reconsider every aspect of their political/social/moral culture. Simply accepting traditional aspects of our world as 'natural' or because changing your lifestyle would take too much effort is, IMO, coonservative. Without wanting to get too corny/crappy, we should all be the revolution we want to see. My ideals are ones of compassion and I do not hesitate in extending this compassion to animals. I am not arrogant enough to wholly believe that humanity as a species can treat other species however we like just because we are stronger, more intelligent etc. Extend that line of thought to human society and you get classic reactionary politics. I admit, vegetarianism was somewhat easier for me to adopt because my mother was vegetarian, but it was my own decision. While I suppose I have to respect the fact that other people don't feel the same way about animal rights as I do, I can't help but feel they're simply hiding from questioning themselves and the morality of their lifestyle habits.
So yeah, basically I'm one of those annoying smug veggie types that people like to pick on. But I can take that because I know they're really just angry at themselves [smugsmugsmug]
|
|
Grothistan
Military Diplomat
Prime Minister of the Equilism Commonwealth
Posts: 66
|
Post by Grothistan on Nov 11, 2005 22:29:49 GMT
I can see the point in not eating meat (there are many reasons), but I could never give up a good steak, not now, and not after the revolution. I do, however, believe in that animals should be treated well, and given a good life, before they are used in ever so delicious burgers and club-sandwhiches. I do respect others choice to not eat meat/fish/eggs, but they shouldn't try to coerce this choice on others. I always pick on the kind of people who do that - It's a principle for me
|
|
|
Post by The Red Factions on Nov 12, 2005 10:58:09 GMT
All animals should have the right to consideration of their respective interests. For example, a cow, dog or cat most certainly have an explicit interest in not/I] having pain inflicted on them. We should respect this right and treat them humanly, but I'm definitly not giving up burgers or the like. Some would call this the promotion of "animal welfare" rather than "animal rights" but I don't really see a big difference.
|
|
EuroSoviets
Defence Forces
Founders of the Allied States of EuroIslanders.
Posts: 697
|
Post by EuroSoviets on Nov 12, 2005 11:11:45 GMT
I'm with Grothistan.
Unless animals are domestic pets - I'm not referring to species, just to individual animals - or are endangered in any way, then chow down people. I understand the energy argument, I did GCSE biology just like the rest of the Brits here. I enjoy eating meat. It is more concentrated in terms of energy than plants - which is why vegetarian animals have to eat such a vast amount of vegetation to sustain themselves. Animals are another natural resource to be exploited.
For their genes. For testing with medial equipment that could one day be used to save the life of a human. For food. For clothes. Bloody Neolithic Age man did not have problems killing a deer and using it for clothing. In areas where there are no polyesters manufactured, cotton and animal hide both constitute clothing - and I don't have a problem with this. My sensibilities bridle a little when people of wealth use the hide of an animal as a status distinction or when cosmetic firms want to test their products on animals - that's a vulgar expropriation of the world's natural resources for an extreme minority and it should be ruthlessly rooted out.
But beyond that, no one has the right to tell me what I can and can't eat and no one and nothing should stand in the way of conscientious scientific development.
|
|
Grothistan
Military Diplomat
Prime Minister of the Equilism Commonwealth
Posts: 66
|
Post by Grothistan on Nov 12, 2005 11:42:21 GMT
Agreed. Cosmetics firms have no right to test their products on animals - If a cosmetics product isn't safe enough to test on humans, it shouldn't be tested at all.
However, if cruely killing two hundred hounds, seventy scorpions and a band of badgers can save as much as one human life, I'm for it. That's because I consider human life the most important thing in the world - If that makes me a nature-fascist, then I guess that's what I am.
|
|
|
Post by small green plants on Nov 12, 2005 21:04:09 GMT
I am most certainly against animal testing of cosmetic products. However I would also question the value of any animal testing on the basis that all species are unique in their own way and what may prove successful in testing on, say rats, guinea pigs or chimpanzees could quite possibly prove disastrous to humans. I can see no justification to inflict torture upon any creature to "see what happens". Regarding vegetarianism, my opinion is that we are "unfortunately" predators, omnivores and scavengers and to survive we need to consume other forms of life. Plants are also living entities and the fact that they are unable to protest their demise when eaten whole and most likely still alive does not make me sympathetic to the vegetarian school of thought. Some eat fish, some refuse milk, to some eggs are acceptable. The vegetarian idealism is filled with hypocrisy. Where should the line be drawn?
Personally I am and will remain a carnivore.
Grothistan, I agree with you that a good steak is delicious.
|
|
|
Post by Jako on Nov 12, 2005 22:41:37 GMT
Ho-hum!
|
|
|
Post by canteria on Nov 12, 2005 22:44:28 GMT
I'm a vegetarian, mainly for two reasons-
1- To protest corprate farms, which are sick hellholes,
2- I'm a picky eater.
|
|
|
Post by Revolutionary Masses on Nov 13, 2005 23:01:38 GMT
LOL very good choices cant :.D
ES when you say then animal genetics should be exploited do you include that to human genetics?
Personally I rank animals and to be honest most things far above humanity, I would gladly wipe out 99.9% of humanity to save one other species from human destuction. We are far too many in my opinion we have outgrown our enviroment hand some of us should really start dying like the rats that we are. I suppose now I think about it thats why I like war so much, not only it the technology facinating but it gets rid of a lot of dead flesh.
HIV appears to have cured itself in the news today in one patient, I find myself hoping that this isnt so for some reason as its a substantil population check, another african war is also looming....I hope that happens, africa is far too populated.....
Guess im a bit speciesist against us....wierd!
|
|
EuroSoviets
Defence Forces
Founders of the Allied States of EuroIslanders.
Posts: 697
|
Post by EuroSoviets on Nov 14, 2005 3:10:53 GMT
Yes, I do believe human genetics should be exploited. I don't think it can be done under a capitalist system - the possibilities for increasing the wealth disparity in the world is frightening - but under a communist system, why shouldn't every child be fully functional, as smart as is biologically possible, faster, able to breathe under water and so on? So long as we understand the technology I see no problem in using it. If we can cure the many genetic diseases that cripple humans, bloody marvellous! If we can find out how to make exercise enjoyable using genetics, even better - no fat arsed Americans!
RM, the Earth can sustain the number of people on it. It's a fact. The religious right love throwing that argument up with regard to the Chinese 1 child policy. We can't continue to expand the population at such an exponential rate - but in prosperous societies, reproduction drops. Europe is currently in balance - though nations like Italy are shrinking in terms of population. America is still in a slight boom. I don't have the figures for elsewhere - but the answer is quite simple. Contraception. Lots of it. For Free. Shoot anyone who says the words 'It's not God's way' or better yet let me at them in a room where I'm armed with a pickaxe.
|
|