Is animal testing justified

[Nous]

The Golden Rule doesn't exclude any animal that is able to suffer like any human does. Just the contrary. You pervert what the Golden Rule literally says merely for your own gratifications.

Go ahead and define the golden rule with links. You're making some very strong claims that you're not even trying to back up.

The Wikipedia article quotes dozens of formulations of the Golden Rule. Not one of them excludes other animals.

Even if the Golden Rule did exclude non-human animals, it still wouldn't justify senselessly tormenting animals, which is what happens in factory farms and laboratories.

Why do you think we have anti-cruelty laws?

Concerning eating plants, you're one assertion of eating plants is that they don't suffer. The problem though, is that you are asserting this is true.

Presumably you are misrepresenting what I've said because you can substantiate your claims.

Here's what I've said:

I asked you to cite "any scientific study where the authors concluded from some fact that plants suffer". As far as I know, there is no such scientific study.

Plants also don't have nociception or a central nervous system, which, as far as I know, are necessary for an entity to suffer.

 

[Nous]

We've also gained valuable biological, behavioral and medical information from animal testing

Cite all of the animal-model experiments you know of that tested a hypothesis about humans.

The literature from PCRM doesn't note any animal-model experiments that were predictive of results in humans. Right?

I can only wonder if your membership in PCRM is to subvert the purposes of this organization.

 

[McBell]

The Wikipedia article quotes dozens of formulations of the Golden Rule. Not one of them excludes other animals.

Even if the Golden Rule did exclude non-human animals, it still wouldn't justify senselessly tormenting animals, which is what happens in factory farms and laboratories.

Why do you think we have anti-cruelty laws?

Presumably you are misrepresenting what I've said because you can substantiate your claims.

Here's what I've said:

I asked you to cite "any scientific study where the authors concluded from some fact that plants suffer". As far as I know, there is no such scientific study.

Plants also don't have nociception or a central nervous system, which, as far as I know, are necessary for an entity to suffer.

So basically, what you are saying is the golden rule only applies if you know there is suffering?

 

[suncowiam]

The Wikipedia article quotes dozens of formulations of the Golden Rule. Not one of them excludes other animals.

Even if the Golden Rule did exclude non-human animals, it still wouldn't justify senselessly tormenting animals, which is what happens in factory farms and laboratories.

Why do you think we have anti-cruelty laws?

Presumably you are misrepresenting what I've said because you can substantiate your claims.

Here's what I've said:

I asked you to cite "any scientific study where the authors concluded from some fact that plants suffer". As far as I know, there is no such scientific study.

Plants also don't have nociception or a central nervous system, which, as far as I know, are necessary for an entity to suffer.

You assessment needs a bit more refinement.

I read the initial part and then skimmed through the remaining iterations.

I then did a word search for the following words in the wiki:
animal,
organ - ism,
vege - table,
conscious,
cell

Nothing.

The one word that comes up is "other." It comes up 120 times.

oth·er
ˈəT͟Hər/Submit
adjective & pronoun
1.
used to refer to a person or thing that is different or distinct from one already mentioned or known about.

So... If its defined as a person. I'm right.

If its defined as a thing, then what's the point of the golden rule if I have to adjust to every known thing in the universe, like a rock.

Concerning anti-cruelty laws, couldn't we define it cruel to kill and eat other organisms? How is that not considered cruel? Also, these laws do not prevent humans killing and eating animals for pleasure. So if you go by laws alone, you actually have little basis in your argument.

Also, your only basis for all of this is you don't think vegetation suffers when you eat them. But, you personify other organisms as if they're human. There could be unknown ways that vegetation do suffer when you cut into them or uproot them. You did not provide scientific proof on this topic that they absolutely do not suffer. You provided assumptions on concepts that are shared by animals. I think you need absolute proof for your moral high ground. I've also provided you links to various articles that suggest vegetation feels and understands their surroundings. They put up defenses when their existence is in danger. They can move towards sun light or their roots for better sustenance. They communicate via chemicals with the surrounding plants. It just happens many times slower than how animals communicate or adjust. If that doesn't suggest a will to live and some consciousness then I guess there's nothing else to convince in the matter. I don't consider conclusive but I think it definitely leaves the door open.

Common, sorry man, this is getting old. No disrespect to you because I honestly respect your ideals with the caveat that you keep them to yourself. To use it as a moral high ground is a bit shaky. I eat for sustenance and pleasure now, and I absolutely have no guilt of it. I'm fine if you feel that is disgusting. That's your prerogative but to suggest that this rule is universal or morally bounding to every single human being is far fetched.

Let's just resolve this by respectfully agreeing to disagree.

Thanks

 

[Nous]

So basically, what you are saying is the golden rule only applies if you know there is suffering?

If you deduced that from something I said, then just quote whatever I said, and state that deduction.

 

[McBell]

If you deduced that from something I said, then just quote whatever I said, and state that deduction.

Is not your argument that the golden rule does not apply to plants because to the best of your knowledge plants do not feel pain or "suffer"?

 

[Nous]

You assessment needs a bit more refinement.

I read the initial part and then skimmed through the remaining iterations.

I then did a word search for the following words in the wiki:
animal,
organ - ism,
vege - table,
conscious,
cell

Nothing.

The one word that comes up is "other." It comes up 120 times.

oth·er
ˈəT͟Hər/Submit
adjective & pronoun
1.
used to refer to a person or thing that is different or distinct from one already mentioned or known about.

So... If its defined as a person. I'm right.

If its defined as a thing, then what's the point of the golden rule if I have to adjust to every known thing in the universe, like a rock.

So you don't dispute that the Golden Rule does not exclude animals who suffer like you.

Concerning anti-cruelty laws, couldn't we define it cruel to kill and eat other organisms?

If you become brave enough to address the question I asked: "Why do you think we have anti-cruelty laws?", be sure to let me know.

There could be unknown ways that vegetation do suffer when you cut into them or uproot them.

You don't have to speculate or engage in baseless fantasies in order to observe the suffering of animals in factory farms and laboratories.

 

[Nous]

Is not your argument that the golden rule does not apply to plants because to the best of your knowledge plants do not feel pain or "suffer"?

I haven't argued that. Why don't you respond to what I actually have said?

 

[suncowiam]

So you don't dispute that the Golden Rule does not exclude animals who suffer like you.

If you become brave enough to address the question I asked: "Why do you think we have anti-cruelty laws?", be sure to let me know.

You don't have to speculate or engage in baseless fantasies in order to observe the suffering of animals in factory farms and laboratories.

You're not reading anything I commented. I addressed specifically your claims. Your basis of logic is actually very little.

This is becoming circular and simply won't go anywhere. We're done. Believe what you like.

 

[Nous]

You're not reading anything I commented. I addressed specifically your claims. Your basis of logic is actually very little.

This is becoming circular and simply won't go anywhere. We're done. Believe what you like.

The fact remains that you haven't justified the senseless torment of animals in laboratories and factory farms or anywhere else, and you obviously can't justify such senseless torture merely to gratify one's own perverted desires.

 

[Hugh of Borg]

Please vote on the poll. What gives us the right to subject animals to such abuse??

I believe very much in the Krisna philosophy in that if you cause suffering to others it will rebound back on you. The philosophy is "The suffering you cause, is the suffering you receive". So anyone who has anything to do with animal experiments would receive that suffering back on themselves. And in their next life they would get Multiple Sclerosis or Motor Neurone Syndrome or maybe they would lose an arm or leg during their life, or something pretty horrible.
I don't think that anyone who causes suffering to anyone else gets away with it.
That is why there is a God is that not so?
Or Many Gods?
Some kind of Intelligent Moral and Justice System anyhow.
So if you do feel sad or upset about how those poor little animals are treated, then take heart, there would be Justice.
It is nice to see people worry about the little animals.
I saw a TV program once with some woman scientist in a white coat in one of those animal experiment labs, and she picked up this little rabbit and administered this horrible animal testing injection. Goodness knows how much suffering that little rabbit was going through.
She treated the rabbit as though it was the same thing as a bath sponge.
Pick up. Inject. Put down. No heart. No compassion. Just this horrible cold scientific process.
You do wonder at people sometimes don't you?
Why it is that some people have heart and compassion and yet others do not seem to. How some people can harm children and neglect children whereas others never would.
The World today is in a terrible state.
They say it is because of feminism.

 

[Valjean]

Cite all of the animal-model experiments you know of that tested a hypothesis about humans.

The literature from PCRM doesn't note any animal-model experiments that were predictive of results in humans. Right?

I can only wonder if your membership in PCRM is to subvert the purposes of this organization.

Why would an article about non predictive experiments cite predictive experiments?

No-one disputes the potential and historical usefulness of animal models. The dispute revolves around weather the failure rate justifies the continuation of testing, or, if continued, weather design standards should be tightned.

My 1ry objection is neither of these. I question the morality of unequal consideration itself.

 

[Valjean]

Interesting how you did not answer the question.
That makes twice.
Rather rude.

I understand that you giving a direct answer to that direct question wfould merely prove my point, but still

My objection is that it's immoral not to give equal consideration to the rights of others, regardless of race, religion, sex or species.

 

[McBell]

My objection is that it's immoral not to give equal consideration to the rights of others, regardless of race, religion, sex or species.

Where do you draw the line?

 

[Nous]

No-one disputes the potential and historical usefulness of animal models.

PCRM disputes the usefulness of animal-model experimentation (see my quotes above). Right? I dispute it. That's why we advocate against senselessly tormenting animals in laboratories.

And you haven't cited a single animal-model experiment that tested a hypothesis about humans.

The dispute revolves around weather the failure rate justifies the continuation of testing, or, if continued, weather design standards should be tightned.

What the hell do you mean by this? You're saying that animal-model experimentation is "useful" but "the failure rate" is too high? How do you determine a "failure rate" of animal-model experiments? In what did the animal-model experiments fail?

And where does PCRM advocate that "design standards" of animal-model experiments should be "tightened"? What standards? Quote whatever you're talking about here.

I strongly encourage you to read the articles at the PCRM website. Your claims on this thread are entirely contrary to the information that PCRM provides. Either you haven't read this information or you haven't understood it.

 

[Nous]

My objection is that it's immoral not to give equal consideration to the rights of others, regardless of race, religion, sex or species.

Is there any organization that advocates for giving equal consideration of the rights of dandelions as given to humans?

 

[Valjean]

Where do you draw the line?

I apply to the principle of equal consideration of interests.
I excludes organisms with no self-interest or awareness of futurity; those unable to suffer or experience joy; those without sentience or self-awareness, &c.

Is there any organization that advocates for giving equal consideration of the rights of dandelions as given to humans?

Do dandelions have any of the features that figure in our according moral consideration to other humans?

 

[Nous]

Do dandelions have any of the features that figure in our according moral consideration to other humans?

Not that I know of. That's why I asked my question in response to your statement that “it's immoral not to give equal consideration to the rights of others, regardless of . . . species.” There are lots of species that I would not consider to be worthy of having any rights at all. Cockleburs, for instance. I wouldn't care if you tortured them in laboratories until they scream. I also don't like mosquitoes, cockroaches or intestinal worms. I would adamantly oppose recognition of any rights for these animals. I encourage meat-eaters to eats these pests instead of intelligent, loving mammals, birds and fishes.

Did you look at PCRM's information on the problems with animal-model experiments?