I think animal testing is necessary especially for medical purpose
Draw a line
100 rats and rabbit vs the chance to save 100 thousand children
Which side would you pick
There are also tons of cosmetic companies that don't test on animals, so that proves it can be done. At this point, for cosmetics if you're testing on animals it's now at the tipping point into "unnecessary and unethical" territory. Animal testing for medicine is still necessary, but we are making progress toward being more humane and toward technologies to make it unneccessary.
The featured article refers to a Tennessee state registry, the only state with a statewide program. Some other locations have their own versions but none are linked, with some being public and some not. As of a few years ago the FBI began tracking animal cruelty cases but only for statistics purposes at this time. A long way from a nation wide registry but one step closer. The framework is starting to form.
First off, showing lack of empathy for animals is a sign of being a serial killer
Second, why shouldn't they ? They're animals that feel pain and emotions like humans, though not always as complex. Why should their whole lives be suffering if there's no actual benefit ? It's like keeping your kid when you didn't want it and you end up abusing and neglecting it. YOU'RE the bad person in the situation because you unnecessarily inflicted pain on another being.
"First off, showing lack of empathy for animals is a sign of being a serial killer "
Among many other things, but okay.
"Second, why shouldn't they ?"
Because empathizing with something probably shouldn't automatically grant it rights, for one thing. I'm pretty sure the burden lies with people who want to grant rights to justify it, though.
"Why should their whole lives be suffering if there's no actual benefit ?"
Benefit to who?
"It's like keeping your kid when you didn't want it and you end up abusing and neglecting it."
I'm fine with children having rights.
"YOU'RE the bad person in the situation because you unnecessarily inflicted pain on another being."
Even if I stipulate to that, it doesn't explain why animals should have rights.
Also, why are you putting spaces before your question marks?
"showing lack of empathy for animals is a sign of being a serial killer" - Where did you learn that, on Dexter? Actually, showing a lot more empathy towards animals than towards humans is a definite telltale sign for a psychopath.
I think this is not about actually granting rights to animals (which would really be peculiar and pretty much impossible to execute) but to give them more protection than if they were just an object.
Just a little correction, you're both in a way correct but overall a 'sign' (using that term very loosely) of a psychopath is having a lack of empathy altogether, so certain hormones in the amygdala are suppressed causing this, due to a number of reasons. I don't think that was necessary though to say in the first place. I personally think animals should have rights because they think and feel, we're animals too after all and we have rights. By not respecting them we're sinking to a level I would call inhuman.
4
·
Edited 7 years ago
deleted
· 7 years ago
Again, "rights" for animals would be very hard to establish and would require them to be able to express any violation of those rights, plus we would have to draw a couple of lines. Foodstock vs. pets just being the most obvious.
Rights for humans have historically been hard to establish, many humans like babies and the infirmed can't easily communicate or report abuses either. Of course there would be discussion. We still can't agree amongst people that ones who are different shades from us, have different genitals, come from different places or pray facing the wrong wall deserve rights or just which rights. Because it's hard doesn't mean we don't try to do what's right. Regardless of what capabilities a person thinks an animal has, as humans we can understand the consequences of our actions.
3
·
Edited 7 years ago
deleted
· 7 years ago
Whats wrong with better protection, why does it have to be "animal rights" explicitly? And wouldn't any imaginable form of animal right not force people to live vegan by default? Good luck with that... demanding too much will usually end in getting nothing.
If you prefer you can call it as you like. A rose is a rose and a protection assumed inherent by virtue is generally called a right. One might assume the logical extension of animal rights is veganism, but rights aren't treated as absolutes, there are exceptions and caveats as deemed practical or necessary. In the war on terror several countries have used enhanced interrogation, suspension of legal rights, and other rights. Most countries have active military/police forces as well as penal systems which will take lives as deemed conducive to furthering societies goals or prosperity. Not taking life lightly doesn't mean not taking life. Complete veganism is the most extreme version of the idea where animals are given equal rights to humans, but we still exploit fellow humans and subjugate them as much as society is willing to allow. People justify what they want regardless. We just export cruelty so we don't have to look at it or feel responsible while funding it away from our view.
·
Edited 7 years ago
deleted
· 7 years ago
"If you prefer you can call it as you like." - yea, I kind of stopped there.
That's your prerogative. You prefer speaking to listening in an exchange of ideas, I don't consider it a waste of time either way as I have answered your question- You choose to remain with a question when the answer is given right in front of you.
Draw a line
100 rats and rabbit vs the chance to save 100 thousand children
Which side would you pick
Second, why shouldn't they ? They're animals that feel pain and emotions like humans, though not always as complex. Why should their whole lives be suffering if there's no actual benefit ? It's like keeping your kid when you didn't want it and you end up abusing and neglecting it. YOU'RE the bad person in the situation because you unnecessarily inflicted pain on another being.
Among many other things, but okay.
"Second, why shouldn't they ?"
Because empathizing with something probably shouldn't automatically grant it rights, for one thing. I'm pretty sure the burden lies with people who want to grant rights to justify it, though.
"Why should their whole lives be suffering if there's no actual benefit ?"
Benefit to who?
"It's like keeping your kid when you didn't want it and you end up abusing and neglecting it."
I'm fine with children having rights.
"YOU'RE the bad person in the situation because you unnecessarily inflicted pain on another being."
Even if I stipulate to that, it doesn't explain why animals should have rights.
Also, why are you putting spaces before your question marks?
I think this is not about actually granting rights to animals (which would really be peculiar and pretty much impossible to execute) but to give them more protection than if they were just an object.