Yes, here we are again. I'd like you fellas to please advice me with respect to the following.

Is there any value or meaning to the concept "Cruelty to Animals", and if so, why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruelty_to_animals

I would particularly like to understand if in this regard -

- - - > Using animals for scientific experiments is wrong, or amounts to cruelty to animals

- - - > Killing animals for sport (hunting, fishing) is wrong, or amounts to cruelty to animals

- - - > Killing animals for aesthetic purposes such as decorations, ivory, fur coats, furniture and the like, is wrong, or amounts to cruelty to animals

- - - > Genetically adjusting animals to meet our needs is wrong or amounts to cruelty to animals

- - - > Using animals for our sports such as Bull Fighting, Cock-Fighting, Dog Fighting, is wrong, or amounts to cruelty to animals.

- - - > Taking animals into our wars - beasts such as horses, elephants, camels and other such creatures, and having them gored to death and maimed in our battles is wrong, or amounts to cruelty against animals.

- - - > Hacking my dog to death and eating him for lunch is wrong, and amounts to cruelty against animals

- - - > Torturing animals is wrong, or amounts to cruelty against animals.

- - - > Eating animals alive (such as the Japanese do with some types of fish) is wrong, or amounts to cruelty to animals.

- - - > Killing animals for ritualistic purposes is wrong, or amounts to cruelty to animals.

Answer according to whatever worldview or moral stance you have: do not be bothered about mine, I do not wish us to start debating what morality means and why, not just now, anyhow, not after that 19 page headache of saying nothing to one another. So just answer according to your personal take. Please do not give an academic answer that you just feel is politically or scientifically correct only. Give answers of your personal moral opinion and how you would feel about such acts.

Here is the strict rule please. Only short one line answers are allowed throughout this thread. Nobody is allowed to go into an extensive explanation of anything. You may ask questions, but they must also be short one-liners. The reason for this rule is to arrive at strict logic and not prose: to avoid verbosity and avoid a situation whereby people duck behind meaningless words. Short one liners and no more. Be warned, I have connections amongst the moderators and I have compromised them with gifts of land, houses, cars and bespoke str.ippers. If I ask them to ban you from the earth, they will.

Your answers please.

They really got to you didn't they. Just thank God logicboy wasn't there - to further confound you with his thoughts.

Uyi Iredia: They really got to you didn't they. Just thank God logicboy wasn't there - to further confound you with his thoughts.

Yes they did. Astonishing views. But lets concentrate on this one. And logicboy was there. About 2 or 3 meaningless posts.

im sorry to interfere. just got tempted to give my opinion:

wrong (if it causes the animal pain), right (as long as the dead animal is put to use, such as eaten,etc. hunting is better than domestication), wrong (it can be avoided by getting those items from dead animals or by harvesting it from them without the need to kill), wrong (against nature), wrong (cruel. is ok only if the animals are given treatment after that and are given long breaks after fights and not put to any other tasks), right (same reason as above bracketed), however these days we dont use them so does not apply today, right (as long as you dont torture him to death and do eat him. however you will be a savage if you eat an animal that you share a personal relationship with and who trusts you. so in that case it will be wrong.), wrong (its cruel to torture animals and cause unnecessary sufferring).

PAGAN 9JA:
im sorry to interfere. just got tempted to give my opinion:

wrong (if it causes the animal pain), right (as long as the dead animal is put to use, such as eaten,etc. hunting is better than domestication), wrong (it can be avoided by getting those items from dead animals or by harvesting it from them without the need to kill), wrong (against nature), wrong (cruel. is ok only if the animals are given treatment after that and are given long breaks after fights and not put to any other tasks), right (same reason as above bracketed), however these days we dont use them so does not apply today, right (as long as you dont torture him to death and do eat him. however you will be a savage if you eat an animal that you share a personal relationship with and who trusts you. so in that case it will be wrong.), wrong (its cruel to torture animals and cause unnecessary sufferring).

Please comply with the rules. It is not possible to read and understand your post as it is. Quote the questions and place your answers.

Deep Sight:

Please comply with the rules. It is not possible to read and understand your post as it is. Quote the questions and place your answers.

which rules says that? are you slow to read my words?

PAGAN 9JA:


which rules says that? are you slow to read my words?

The one line rule. For each of your answers, the reader has to scroll up to the questions and puzzle over which question you are answering its mostly not clear which is which.

Deep Sight:

The one line rule. For each of your answers, the reader has to scroll up to the questions and puzzle over which question you are answering its mostly not clear which is which.

what rule number?

PAGAN 9JA:


what rule number?

I am the one who created the rule in my OP. I said -

Here is the strict rule please. Only short one line answers are allowed throughout this thread. Nobody is allowed to go into an explanation of anything. You may ask questions, but they must also be short one-liners. The reason for this rule is to arrive at strict logic and not prose: to avoid verbosity and avoid a situation whereby people duck behind meaningless words. Short one liners and no more. Be warned, I have connections amongst the moderators and I have compromised them with gifts of land, houses, cars and bespoke str.ippers. If I ask them to ban you from the earth, they will.

Secondly it is difficult to know which question you are responding to when being so difficult. Especially as I added new questions in between. Stop being stubborn. Just re-arrange them so readers can know what question you are answering.

Deep Sight:

Yes they did. Astonishing views. But lets concentrate on this one. And logicboy was there. About 2 or 3 meaningless posts.

I saw them. Quite unlike him, he didn't take it the whole 9 yards. In any case, I intend to go over the thread and critique it. Just saying.

Deep Sight:

I am the one who created the rule in my OP. I said -



Secondly it is difficult to know which question you are responding to when being so difficult. Especially as I added new questions in between. Stop being stubborn. Just re-arrange them so readers can know what question you are answering.

whatever. the time you have spent arguing with me could have been used to just read the post and the relative query.

anyways..

Deep Sight:
- - - > Using animals for scientific experiments is wrong, or amounts to cruelty to animals

wrong (if it causes the animal pain)

- - - > Killing animals for sport (hunting, fishing) is wrong, or amounts to cruelty to animals

right (as long as the dead animal is put to use, such as eaten,etc. hunting is better than domestication).

- - - > Killing animals for aesthetic purposes such as decorations, ivory, fur coats, furniture and the like, is wrong, or amounts to cruelty to animals

wrong (it can be avoided by getting those items from dead animals or by harvesting it from them without the need to kill).

- - - > Genetically adjusting animals to meet our needs is wrong or amounts to cruelty to animals

wrong (against nature)

- - - > Using animals for our sports such as Bull Fighting, Cock-Fighting, Dog Fighting, is wrong, or amounts to cruelty to animals.

wrong (cruel. is ok only if the animals are given treatment after that and are given long breaks after fights and not put to any other tasks)

- - - > Taking animals into our wars - beasts such as horses, elephants, camels and other such creatures, and having them gored to death and maimed in our battles is wrong, or amounts to cruelty against animals.

right (same reason as above bracketed), however these days we dont use them so does not apply today

- - - > Hacking my dog to death and eating him for lunch is wrong, and amounts to cruelty against animals

right (as long as you dont torture him to death and do eat him. however you will be a savage if you eat an animal that you share a personal relationship with and who trusts you. so in that case it will be wrong.)

- - - > Torturing animals is wrong, or amounts to cruelty against animals.

wrong (its cruel to torture animals and cause unnecessary sufferring)

- - - > Eating animals alive (such as the Japanese do with some types of fish) is wrong, or amounts to cruelty to animals.

wrong. Its wrong to torture and cause suffering unnecessarily.

- - - > Killing animals for ritualistic purposes is wrong, or amounts to cruelty to animals.

right. as long as the animal is not tortured, which rarely if ever, happens. Ritual animals are done for spiritual purposes as sacrifice and the animal is usually eaten afterwards as offering.

^^^ Thank you. Your answers are based on the sense that animals are living creatures and that they can suffer pain. Pain is therefore the basis for your judgments. As such, you consider causing pain to animals immoral, yes?

I will have a problem giving you a straight answer because I would say that for me, it depends on the type of animal. For me, there is nothing you can do to snake that I can consider cruel. If you slow cook a snake alive with its children, you are a too kind and generous. However, I would personally torture anybody I see hurting a monkey for whatever reason.

Alfa Seltzer: I will have a problem giving you a straight answer because I would say that for me, it depends on the type of animal. For me, there is nothing you can do to snake that I can consider cruel. If you slow cook a snake alive with its children, you are a too kind and generous. However, I would personally torture anybody I see hurting a monkey for whatever reason.

This means you regard some animals as good and some as evil. Can you share your reason(s) for this please?

(Although I understand the feeling, a friend an i came up with what we called the Evil Cult of Six - Snakes, Bats, Scorpions, Hyenas, Vultures and crocodiles).

But give reasons please.

Deep Sight:

This means you regard some animals as good and some as evil. Can you share your reason(s) for this please?

(Although I understand the feeling, a friend an i came up with what we called the Evil Cult of Six - Snakes, Bats, Scorpions, Hyenas, Vultures and crocodiles).

But give reasons please.

It is not about good and evil. All creatures have their uses. In my case, it is about phobia. I have an irrational fear of snakes. I would do anything to avoid contact with them. I even became physically sick and confused and almost fainted when we went to a zoo recently and I saw a small snake behind a glass box. I knew it was harmless but the proximity was too much to handle. Mind you, I wont go on a snake killing spree or pay someone to hurt them but I can never feel any remorse for anything that may happen to a snake. That is why I said it depends on the animal. I feel a bit guilty when I slaughter goats or chicken but it doesn't prevent me from enjoying their meat. Sorry if it is not what you wanted to hear but that's how I see it.

Alfa Seltzer:

It is not about good and evil. All creatures have their uses. In my case, it is about phobia. I have an irrational fear of snakes. I would do anything to avoid contact with them. I even became physically sick and confused and almost fainted when we went to a zoo recently and I saw a small snake behind a glass box. I knew it was harmless but the proximity was too much to handle. Mind you, I wont go on a snake killing spree or pay someone to hurt them but I can never feel any remorse for anything that may happen to a snake. That is why I said it depends on the animal. I feel a bit guilty when I slaughter goats or chicken but it doesn't prevent me from enjoying their meat. Sorry if it is not what you wanted to hear but that's how I see it.

Most people share that phobia of snakes. However, if its about fear, can I ask if you feel the same way about other dangerous animals? Lets use the Lion as an example. Do you feel the same way towards it?

Deep Sight:

Most people share that phobia of snakes. However, if its about fear, can I ask if you feel the same way about other dangerous animals? Lets use the Lion as an example. Do you feel the same way towards it?

No.

I sort of don't have any feelings towards lions, love or hate. I couldn't care less what happens to them.

PAGAN 9JA:

wrong (if it causes the animal pain)

how do you measure pain in an animal? By your comment, it would be wrong to gavage an animal, perform tail vein injections, eye punctures etc?

Deep Sight:
^^^ Thank you. Your answers are based on the sense that animals are living creatures and that they can suffer pain. Pain is therefore the basis for your judgments. As such, you consider causing pain to animals immoral, yes?

yes. even a pinch is pain. this is short-lived. I talk about long-live pain, i.e., SUFFERING. e.g., when someone puts daggers into your arms , legs, etc., and lets you bleed to death. (suffering)

davidylan:

how do you measure pain in an animal? By your comment, it would be wrong to gavage an animal, perform tail vein injections, eye punctures etc?

some things are done for the animals own good. E>g., gavage, tail vein injections, etc.

Therefore these are for the long-term benefits of the animal.

If you are just causing pain to animal for no benefit of it, you are a madman and its wrong.

Deep Sight: Yes, here we are again. I'd like you fellas to please advice me with respect to the following.

Is there any value or meaning to the concept "Cruelty to Animals", and if so, why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruelty_to_animals

I would particularly like to understand if in this regard -

- - - > Using animals for scientific experiments is wrong, or amounts to cruelty to animals

- - - > Killing animals for sport (hunting, fishing) is wrong, or amounts to cruelty to animals

- - - > Killing animals for aesthetic purposes such as decorations, ivory, fur coats, furniture and the like, is wrong, or amounts to cruelty to animals

- - - > Genetically adjusting animals to meet our needs is wrong or amounts to cruelty to animals

- - - > Using animals for our sports such as Bull Fighting, Cock-Fighting, Dog Fighting, is wrong, or amounts to cruelty to animals.

- - - > Taking animals into our wars - beasts such as horses, elephants, camels and other such creatures, and having them gored to death and maimed in our battles is wrong, or amounts to cruelty against animals.

- - - > Hacking my dog to death and eating him for lunch is wrong, and amounts to cruelty against animals

- - - > Torturing animals is wrong, or amounts to cruelty against animals.

- - - > Eating animals alive (such as the Japanese do with some types of fish) is wrong, or amounts to cruelty to animals.

- - - > Killing animals for ritualistic purposes is wrong, or amounts to cruelty to animals.

Answer according to whatever worldview or moral stance you have: do not be bothered about mine, I do not wish us to start debating what morality means and why, not just now, anyhow, not after that 19 page headache of saying nothing to one another. So just answer according to your personal take. Please do not give an academic answer that you just feel is politically or scientifically correct only. Give answers of your personal moral opinion and how you would feel about such acts.

Here is the strict rule please. Only short one line answers are allowed throughout this thread. Nobody is allowed to go into an extensive explanation of anything. You may ask questions, but they must also be short one-liners. The reason for this rule is to arrive at strict logic and not prose: to avoid verbosity and avoid a situation whereby people duck behind meaningless words. Short one liners and no more. Be warned, I have connections amongst the moderators and I have compromised them with gifts of land, houses, cars and bespoke str.ippers. If I ask them to ban you from the earth, they will.

Your answers please.

Deepsight, I am awaiting your input to my thread on consciousness.

Now, back to this thread.

In my worldview, the answers to all of the above are NOOOO, except for the use of animals in scientific experiments, in whose case, although cruel, the anticipated benefits to a wider humanity sort of mitigates against my moral conscience to an acceptable level.
Call it hypocrisy, and I agree with you.

PAGAN 9JA:


some things are done for the animals own good. E>g., gavage, tail vein injections, etc.

Therefore these are for the long-term benefits of the animal.

If you are just causing pain to animal for no benefit of it, you are a madman and its wrong.

You mean scientific experiments that require those procedures are bad since they have no long term benefits to the animal?

davidylan:

You mean scientific experiments that require those procedures are bad since they have no long term benefits to the animal?

yes exactly. and they have no survival benefits for humans.

plaetton:

Deepsight, I am awaiting your input to my thread on consciousness.

My dear, you will probably be shocked if you knew how much I have been dwelling on that thread and carefully deciding how to express my thoughts. It is too deep. Frightening, even.

I have an 11 a.m meeting tomorrow: once I am done with that, I will go straight into that thread, I promise. Beware my comments may be extensive.

Now, back to this thread.

In my worldview, the answers to all of the above are NOOOO, except for the use of animals in scientific experiments, in whose case, although cruel, the anticipated benefits to a wider humanity sort of mitigates against my moral conscience to an acceptable level.
Call it hypocrisy, and I agree with you.

Ah, haba, even the torture and sports and decoration? Guy, you harsh o.

Deep Sight:

My dear, you will probably be shocked if you knew how much I have been dwelling on that thread and carefully deciding how to express my thoughts. It is too deep. Frightening, even.

I have an 11 a.m meeting tomorrow: once I am done with that, I will go straight into that thread, I promise. Beware my comments may be extensive.



Ah, haba, even the torture and sports and decoration? Guy, you harsh o.

Nooooo!
I meant the exact opposite. That they are all wrong, except for the use of animals in scientific research.

Alfa Seltzer: However, I would personally torture anybody I see hurting a monkey for whatever reason.

Possibly because they are your 'cousins'. lol !

PAGAN 9JA:


yes exactly. and they have no survival benefits for humans.

and this is an "intelligent" atheist/agnostic? Such a shame. Obviously you are unaware that every single product in the market today has to be tested for human safety... standard tests the world over require gavage studies in mice and rats.

Uyi Iredia:

Possibly because they are your 'cousins'. lol !

Possibly. But mostly because they have demonstrated more intelligence than any christian I have met in my life.

davidylan:

and this is an "intelligent" atheist/agnostic? Such a shame. Obviously you are unaware that every single product in the market today has to be tested for human safety... standard tests the world over require gavage studies in mice and rats.

Im neither atheist, nor agnostic. Im aware of that. However according to me, cosmetics have no human survival value, so it should not be tested on animals. THere are other ways that can be devised to conduct such tests. Also we could use more natural products, instead of these synthetic chemicals.

PAGAN 9JA:


Im neither atheist, nor agnostic. Im aware of that. However according to me, cosmetics have no human survival value, so it should not be tested on animals. THere are other ways that can be devised to conduct such tests. Also we could use more natural products, instead of these synthetic chemicals.

No one was talking about cosmetics. This just reveals the depth of ignorance of armchair scientists.

there are no alternative means to test the reproductive, repeat-dose and carcinogenic effects of substances outside using animals.

Yes we could use more natural products like? Formaldehyde is a natural product, it causes nasopharyngeal cancers (which was first discovered in rats and mice before epi studies confirmed it in humans).

davidylan:

No one was talking about cosmetics. This just reveals the depth of ignorance of armchair scientists.

there are no alternative means to test the reproductive, repeat-dose and carcinogenic effects of substances outside using animals.

Yes we could use more natural products like? Formaldehyde is a natural product, it causes nasopharyngeal cancers (which was first discovered in rats and mice before epi studies confirmed it in humans).

dude stop acting so full of yourself. you never mentioned medicine or cosmetics. the most commonly used way of lab testing is for cosmetics. this is why I spoke about it.

I said that animals should not be used for the testing of cosmetics. However if its for medical purposes, and human life/animal lives depend on it,then they could be used, provided its done only sparsely.

PAGAN 9JA:


dude stop acting so full of yourself. you never mentioned medicine or cosmetics. the most commonly used way of lab testing is for cosmetics. this is why I spoke about it.

I said that animals should not be used for the testing of cosmetics. However if its for medical purposes, and human life/animal lives depend on it,then they could be used, provided its done only sparsely.

Yawn. When people get exposed for knowing so little they start foaming in the mouth.

1. I asked you very clearly if "scientific experiments" were bad and you agreed that they were as long as they had no benefit for humans. There was no delineation of whether this applied to medicine or cosmetics (a very poor analogy since animals are used for testing in a wide variety of applications including pesticides/herbicides).

2. To say animals should not be used for testing of cosmetics is comical in and of itself... it is an angle that the EU has pursued without much success. Even the EU ban expressly states that there are no non-animal alternatives to reproductive, repeat-dose and carcinogenicity testing.

3. What do you mean by "provided they are used sparsely"? The average 2-yr carcinogenicity testing for drugs requires at least 250 rats and 250 mice. 2-3 gen repro studies require far more. Both studies are REQUIRED for NDAs. What do you suggest we do? Recruit humans for these studies instead or not perform them at all?

4. To say that "the most commonly used way of lab testing is for cosmetics" is comical at best and a glaring evidence of your own ignorance at worst. The biggest users of animal testing are pharmaceutical companies for drug testing followed by agro-industries. Cosmetic industries are some of the smallest users since a lot of their acute studies are now done in vitro.

5. If you dont know something ask, if you are too proud to ask then keep quiet.