PETA asks Obama to spare the pardon on turkeys

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by jj

So living a safe life, with no predators, lots of food, and a dry place to hang out, is WHAT, now?

A fantasy.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by jj

This time you try to shift context in order to avoid your rhetorical misconduct.

Since there was nothing in the quoted text that could be reasonably construed as a dilemma, I was forced to guess at the context. But feel free to identify anywhere where there was an excluded middle ground.

Quote:

I'm not going to address ANYTHING you say directly until you stop playing cheap rhetorical games.

What rhetorical games are you referring to?

I asked you a couple of questions. They weren't rhetorical. It's not hard to see why you refuse to answer them.

[ZirconBlue]

I just want to go on record as supporting performing experiments on Charles Manson.

[Crocoshark]

Just to check, if anyone on this thread feels one of their major points has been successfully understood and addressed to their satisfaction by someone on the other side of the argument in this thread, please raise your hand.

And which page?

[jj]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

A fantasy.

Typical of you, emotional manipulation.

That, plus your failure to include the complete context about 3 articles ago, shows very clearly that you are simply trolling.

Cherio, and watch out for the sunlight.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Crocoshark

Just to check, if anyone on this thread feels one of their major points has been successfully understood and addressed to their satisfaction by someone on the other side of the argument in this thread, please raise your hand.

And which page?

In retrospect, someone made a point earlier about what we'd do with cows if everyone became vegetarian. While I admit to dismissing this concern as stupid, I realized my mistake, and the inevitable horrors, upon seeing the following commentary and image:

[Crocoshark]

My thoughts on this subject:

I can't say I believe in animal rights, because I'm perfectly willing to violate the liberty and even life of animals for utilitarian motives, including for the good of animals themselves; my position on no-kill shelters is "whatever involves the least suffering" (not sure which option that is) and I totally support capturing and imprisoning members of endangered species in zoos so that the species exists into the future. I'll admit, my motives in such matters are largely selfish. There are some species I think are really cool and an enrichment to existence on this planet, and I don't want to see them go. I also support regulated medical research on animals alongside fervent research in humane alternatives. There are multiple reasons, but one that would most concern the animal rights crowd is that if we banned animal research in the US we'd just rely on and fund animal research from other countries that may have much less humane conditions for research animals.

My opinion on PETA is they should stop being the center of animal rights in the public sphere. The amount of animals the put down is of questionable necessity, their campaign tactics make the animal rights movement look stupid and they donate to ALF. That said, I don't have strong anti-PETA feelings. People say things like "If they had there way TODAY, we'd have no more vaccines and or any pet ownership." but . . . that would never happen. Those parts of PETA are too fringe on a society level if not a PETA level as well; Vaccine production is never gonna be slowed because of extremist vegans and I don't think it's something most vegans have thought about and they certainly don't seem to have any campaigns about it. This may be my perception, but some things I've never seen PETA-types mention a word against and it consequently just feels like they would never influence it; like the use of animals in magic shows. I can't help but notice they've never brought up that being cruel the way they do circuses, so it just feels like even if they are against it, they're thoughts on the issue are negligible.

Also, it would be nice if people would stop talking about igloos and other things like they're relevant to the subject of inalienable rights. Terminal human infants and brain dead or comatose people have rights. You guys aren't asking yourself "What would a human have to lack for them to be rightfully treated like animals?" Correct me if I'm wrong but the only criteria I can think of is whether or not they're human and were born.

Just as an observation; groups give more concern to others the more part of their group they feel those others are. Chimps look out for members of their species or family first, as do members of most species. Humans look out for family members first. Humans are given the most rights by humans, followed by pets, since after humans, pets are the most part of human family groups. For a portion of humans, family pets will get more consideration than criminals they don't know, since pets are more part of their group, and criminals are less part of the "society" group humans live in. There's also the defense and preservation of one's own and one's territory. I mean, our laws will even allow violence against humans in this area. In some states if someone comes into your home uninvited and starts damaging stuff you can shoot the **** out of them as necessary. Same deal with invasive animals, though I'd prefer non-lethal force used on either whenever possible. Don't care about non-lethal force on parasites though, there's no evidence they feel pain or anything, and they're in my bloodstream. If people started crawling into my bloodstream I'd probably kill them with impunity to.

I agree that we should pursue the ideal of reducing suffering of all sentient beings, and I assume (hope) everyone else on this thread does to, but when push comes to shove and sacrifices must be made and something else than ideals must come into the equation.

[MarkCorrigan]

But ALF are heroes for realising mink, apparently.

[Mister Earl]

Not to mention PETA itself partakes in terroristic activities. Seriously, if animal rights are your think, give your time to the SPCA. They do all the good work without any of the detrimental media attention-mongering.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Mister Earl

Not to mention PETA itself partakes in terroristic activities. Seriously, if animal rights are your think, give your time to the SPCA. They do all the good work without any of the detrimental media attention-mongering.

It's not about animal rights, it's about demonizing humans.

[Mister Earl]

Originally Posted by tsig

It's not about animal rights, it's about demonizing humans.

My opinion: It's not about animal rights OR demonizing humans. It's about making money.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by jj

Typical of you, emotional manipulation.

Emotional manipulation? Because I characterized your bucolic picture of a food animal's life as unrealistic? Sure, whatever. I suppose you have nothing to lose at this point. Another turd rolls down the wall.

Crocoshark, you've laid out some thoughtful arguments and reasonable observations. I'll just respond to this bit:

Quote:

Just as an observation; groups give more concern to others the more part of their group they feel those others are. Chimps look out for members of their species or family first, as do members of most species. Humans look out for family members first. Humans are given the most rights by humans, followed by pets, since after humans, pets are the most part of human family groups.

This is all true, and humans will form in-groups at the drop of a hat (I think there's research that shows that people will show preference for people who have the same last digit in their social security number, if they're primed to), but it's also true that we sometimes move beyond this kind of tribalism, and where it does tremendous harm we ought to (racism is an obvious example). The argument here is that we ought to move beyond the view that there's something really special about being born human.

Quote:

I mean, our laws will even allow violence against humans in this area. In some states if someone comes into your home uninvited and starts damaging stuff you can shoot the **** out of them as necessary. Same deal with invasive animals, though I'd prefer non-lethal force used on either whenever possible.

This strikes me as contentious. If nothing else, the animals will lack mens rea.

Quote:

Don't care about non-lethal force on parasites though, there's no evidence they feel pain or anything, and they're in my bloodstream. If people started crawling into my bloodstream I'd probably kill them with impunity to.

Agreed. There are questions of bodily autonomy here, as well as the fact that most (all?) parasites aren't very good candidates for moral consideration.

Quote:

I agree that we should pursue the ideal of reducing suffering of all sentient beings, and I assume (hope) everyone else on this thread does to, but when push comes to shove and sacrifices must be made and something else than ideals must come into the equation.

Here I disagree. Sacrifices must be made, and they should be guided by our ideals.

Originally Posted by Mister Earl

Not to mention PETA itself partakes in terroristic activities. Seriously, if animal rights are your think, give your time to the SPCA. They do all the good work without any of the detrimental media attention-mongering.

The SPCA isn't an animal rights organization, so no, they don't do all of the good work.

[jj]

Originally Posted by Cain

In retrospect, someone made a point earlier about what we'd do with cows if everyone became vegetarian. While I admit to dismissing this concern as stupid, I realized my mistake, and the inevitable horrors, upon seeing the following commentary and image:

http://i.qkme.me/3s1n5i.jpg

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

I think that's as much in a spirit of dialog as your comments.

[Mister Earl]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

The SPCA isn't an animal rights organization, so no, they don't do all of the good work.

I must be getting my acronymns mixed up or something. The society for prevention of cruelty to animals isn't an animal rights organization? Would you accept "animal welfare organization"? Which specific nit are we picking here?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Mister Earl

My opinion: It's not about animal rights OR demonizing humans. It's about making money.

The root of all evil and the jewel in mankind's eye.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by Mister Earl

I must be getting my acronymns mixed up or something. The society for prevention of cruelty to animals isn't an animal rights organization?

It is definitely not an animal rights organization.

Quote:

Would you accept "animal welfare organization"?

Sure.

Quote:

Which specific nit are we picking here?

This isn't really nitpicking. There are lots of things that an animal rights organization will do that an animal welfare organization will not, which is relevant to the idea that the SPCA is all the good without the bad (from the perspective of a supporter of animal rights). For example, the SPCA does essentially nothing to challenge traditional uses of animals, does not bother to construct a coherent view on why dogs and cats should be so much more important than pigs and sheep--they leave farming practices unchallenged at the macro level.

[Crocoshark]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

This is all true, and humans will form in-groups at the drop of a hat (I think there's research that shows that people will show preference for people who have the same last digit in their social security number, if they're primed to), but it's also true that we sometimes move beyond this kind of tribalism, and where it does tremendous harm we ought to (racism is an obvious example). The argument here is that we ought to move beyond the view that there's something really special about being born human.

In a sense, I think there is something special about being born human (though not in a transcendent or universal sense). If you'll notice, the examples of in-group value I gave above that included pets were based not so much literally on species but on participation in one's family/society. Unlike race or sex, the species you're born as DOES drastically alter how much a part of our families/society you are. Even a brain dead comatose human is more a part of someone's family than most pigs, regardless of mental capacity. Of course, if a dog is a viewed as more a participant in our family/society than a human, they may be viewed higher. I'd probably save an animal, perhaps any animal, who was someone's beloved pet from a fire over Charles Manson.

I suspect that's what people are trying to get at when they say things like "Animals don't build space stations or compose symphonies". They don't literally mean they're assigning consideration of one's life based on igloo-building skills, but on participation and emotional importance in families/society.

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

This strikes me as contentious. If nothing else, the animals will lack mens rea.

If someone broke into your home, you don't know for sure that they have mens rea, they could be legally insane and unaware of their actions in a blind, berserk rage. Personally, I don't think it matters, you get to do whatever you must to stop them, preferably in the most non-lethal way possible.

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

Here I disagree. Sacrifices must be made, and they should be guided by our ideals.

I agree completely. For the most part I'm an animal utilitarian; I just want whatever causes the least suffering overall. Although I'm willing to confine lots and lots of chickens to make vaccines for people. Of course, I'd like the conditions to be as humane as possible, though I acknowledge there's an economic limit to that which will fall short of all of them being free-range chickens basking in the sunshine.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

Mainstream media educated people are known for calling as “terrorism” everything that does not fit in the frame of mind of what they have been told.

How exactly do you label acts of arson and bombing ?

Nevermind the fact that PETA executes many of the animals it shelters.

Also, veganism doesn't make you live longer. It's a combination of many factors, including at least some animal products.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Dessi

PETA has never advocated a view that animals should be set free to run willy nilly, but boy is it fun and easy criticizing them for views they don't hold the first place.

Really ? "Total animal liberation" ring a bell ? It was uttered by the great leader herself.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by John Mekki

Which kind of food makes you fatter:
1) an hamburger with meat
2) a dish of lettuce without oil (well, little bit of oil)

It depends on the quantity. That you think meat itself makes you fat is ridiculous. Our farming grandfathers ate a lot more meat than me, and yet they were small and muscular. It's not the meat.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Cain

I realize it's OK to eat animals because "they're nothing like us" while it's OK to experiment on them because "we share a lot in common!" but isn't it just a basic medical fact that the quickest, surest way to find cures for diseases would mean testing on humans?

Would you be a test subject ?

Humans > Other animals.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Dessi

Thankfully albumen used in vaccines comes from chickens raised in Amish communities

Funniest thing I've read all day.

[Dessi]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Originally Posted by Dessi

PETA has never advocated a view that animals should be set free to run willy nilly, but boy is it fun and easy criticizing them for views they don't hold the first place.

Really ? "Total animal liberation" ring a bell ? It was uttered by the great leader herself.

Total animal liberation describes the categorical abolition of human's continued exploitative use of animals, and the rejection of specieism as an irrational prejudice, not releasing millions of animals wild into the city.

You're welcome to read Tom Regan's "The Case for Animal Rights" for the mainstream AR view on how animal liberation is implemented in practice (spoiler alert: by slowly weening off humans use of animals to nil) -- or you won't, because its just so damn fun and awesome to criticize PETA for views they don't hold anyway.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Cain

Which is not unlike the hoary old claim that liberals love foreigners more than Americans.

It's not entirely inaccurate, though. Even though every step to avoid animal suffering is taken, PETA prefers to have people die than animals die. Sounds just right to me.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Dessi

Biological differences mean everything. I have green eyes, it's in my DNA. There's a DNA difference between me and non-green eyed people, and that gives me privilege to slaughter the lot of them. I'm no traitor to my own kind.

Unfortunately the same line of reasoning means you have no right to kill the plants that make up your salad.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

A fantasy.

Strange. I was under the impression that farm cows lived much safer and less stressful lives, than wild ones.

[Dessi]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Originally Posted by Dessi

Biological differences mean everything. I have green eyes, it's in my DNA. There's a DNA difference between me and non-green eyed people, and that gives me privilege to slaughter the lot of them. I'm no traitor to my own kind.

Unfortunately the same line of reasoning means you have no right to kill the plants that make up your salad.

No, DNA differences do NOT give anyone an advantage over plants, those differences just aren't a relevant factor in how we should treat organisms.

I think the ethical treatment of organisms is determined by their morally relevant capacities. Most AR activists don't generally hold the view that life, literally being biologically alive in and of itself, matters very much. Mainstream AR movement follows the line of thought that we should not cause suffering where its reasonable and easy to avoid -- I think that's an acceptable view, very agreeable, matches up very well with the recommendations of human rights organizations too. AR activists take that view to its logical end.

As for plants, they definitely have some relevant characteristics to consider when we deal with them, like whether they're poisonous, harmful to the environment, best crops to rotate to keep farmland maintainable. I don't think they have any analogous characteristics accounting for a right to life, at least I've never heard anyone seriously defend that claim. Trust me, we're in complete agreement on the ethical treatment of plants.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Dessi

No, DNA differences do NOT give anyone an advantage over plants, those differences just aren't a relevant factor in how we should treat organisms.

How do you justify farming defenseless plants for your consumption ?

Quote:

I think the ethical treatment of organisms is determined by their morally relevant capacities. Most AR activists don't generally hold the view that life, literally being biologically alive in and of itself, matters very much. Mainstream AR movement follows the line of thought that we should not cause suffering where its reasonable and easy to avoid -- I think that's an acceptable view, very agreeable, matches up very well with the recommendations of human rights organizations too. AR activists take that view to its logical end.

Marvelous. So they should not object to humane animal farming and testing.

Quote:

As for plants, they definitely have some relevant characteristics to consider when we deal with them, like whether they're poisonous, harmful to the environment, best crops to rotate to keep farmland maintainable.

Is their well-being important at all ? If not, why not ?

[Estellea]

Originally Posted by Dessi

I 100% sure support animal testing in all the areas where it would be ethical to substitute a mentally similar human in the animals place.

Then you won't mind being the first in line to volunteer.

Este

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Belz...

It's not entirely inaccurate, though. Even though every step to avoid animal suffering is taken, PETA prefers to have people die than animals die. Sounds just right to me.

I'm not sure if disentangling this horse-**** is worth the effort. If genocide was taking place in Africa (just imagine) and someone suggested sending troops to stop it, an uncharitable and daft opponent might say, "You'd prefer it if white people die rather than black people."

Originally Posted by Belz...

Would you be a test subject ?

Why should I become a test subject if I can volunteer my son. What, you mean I can't volunteer my offspring? Can I volunteer yours?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Cain

I'm not sure if disentangling this horse-**** is worth the effort. If genocide was taking place in Africa (just imagine) and someone suggested sending troops to stop it, an uncharitable and daft opponent might say, "You'd prefer it if white people die rather than black people."

Not really, since the whole point is to stop people from dying. In this case, the point is to help animals despite the human suffering it would cause.

Quote:

Why should I become a test subject if I can volunteer my son. What, you mean I can't volunteer my offspring? Can I volunteer yours?

Not sure I follow your logic, here.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Not really, since the whole point is to stop people from dying.

Do you see what's happened here? You've removed the morally arbitrary characteristic -- race. In the case of animals, the same basic logic applies but change "stop people from dying" to "reduce suffering." The AR preference for humans is more circumstantial while your view is more absolute. (I'm not sure if I can say your view is purely absolute, which would probably mean it's OK, for example, to inflict grotesque suffering on animals to increase human joy by sadistic means).

Quote:

Not sure I follow your logic, here.

I have the choice of becoming a test subject. I don't really have the authority to volunteer anyone. I could have my kid participate in trials for an experimental drug... but it must be for his own good.

The question always boils down to what makes humans so special? My own personal opinion is "green eyes."

[Skeptical Greg]

....what makes humans so special?

Their ability to imagine they are.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Cain

Do you see what's happened here? You've removed the morally arbitrary characteristic -- race. In the case of animals, the same basic logic applies but change "stop people from dying" to "reduce suffering."

Except it doesn't.

Quote:

The AR preference for humans is more circumstantial while your view is more absolute. (I'm not sure if I can say your view is purely absolute, which would probably mean it's OK, for example, to inflict grotesque suffering on animals to increase human joy by sadistic means).

???

Quote:

I have the choice of becoming a test subject. I don't really have the authority to volunteer anyone.

And yet without animal tests, what are we left with ?

Quote:

The question always boils down to what makes humans so special?

A few things discussed at length already, but all of that is irrelevant. I'm talking in practical terms. AR people are talking in emotional terms.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Except it doesn't.

Dull assertion is dull.

Quote:

And yet without animal tests, what are we left with ?

If the only way for a person to live is to find someone of a certain blood type, and get his heart, is it OK to resort to murder? What else is left with? Yeah, we don't live for ever.

Now, I realize it's relatively easy to say that in a cold, austere, academic sense. If my own life were at stake, I might be inclined to want to take the chance that experimenting on millions of animals would be OK, which is why your next dull assertion is so bizarre...

Quote:

I'm talking in practical terms. AR people are talking in emotional terms.

The animal rights position appears far more neutral-minded, whereas you're afflicted with a familial bias that leads you to throw up your hands and say things like "what else are left with?" That's not a principled stance. Moreover, some on this board openly embrace their bias toward humans as "natural," but you're suggesting that's not based on emotional terms? Please.

[Estellea]

Originally Posted by Cain

If the only way for a person to live is to find someone of a certain blood type, and get his heart, is it OK to resort to murder? What else is left with? Yeah, we don't live for ever.

This is a strawman argument if it wasn't obvious already. You benefit from animal testing, so do I and so do our children and everyone else on the planet without the imminent threat of death. Immortality isn't the goal of animal testing (although there is considerable research into cellular apoptosis which is tangential I suppose).

Quote:

Now, I realize it's relatively easy to say that in a cold, austere, academic sense. If my own life were at stake, I might be inclined to want to take the chance that experimenting on millions of animals would be OK, which is why your next dull assertion is so bizarre...

Why does your life have to be at stake to justify animal testing?

Este

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Cain

Dull assertion is dull.

You haven't demonstrated your claim either.

Quote:

If the only way for a person to live is to find someone of a certain blood type, and get his heart, is it OK to resort to murder? What else is left with? Yeah, we don't live for ever.

1) Organ donors

2) Are you advocating that we don't help people who need medical treatment because we need to be nice to animals ? You'll excuse me if I suffer from specieism, but I'll help my kind first. Doesn't stop me from caring about the suffering of animals, though.

Quote:

The animal rights position appears far more neutral-minded, whereas you're afflicted with a familial bias that leads you to throw up your hands and say things like "what else are left with?"

Bias ? I am saying that the use of animals is a) necessary, b) desirable and c) preferable. Moral doesn't enter into it. If it did, I'd add that we try to be as humane as possible within our objectives.

Quote:

Moreover, some on this board openly embrace their bias toward humans as "natural," but you're suggesting that's not based on emotional terms? Please.

I have claimed nothing of the sort, so you can de-roll those eyes.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Estellea

This is a strawman argument if it wasn't obvious already.

When calling out something as a straw man, I'm sad to report that you actually have to identify what makes it a straw man. Simply saying it's "obvious" is preaching to the choir.

Quote:

You benefit from animal testing, so do I and so do our children and everyone else on the planet without the imminent threat of death. Immortality isn't the goal of animal testing....

This does not follow. That we personally benefit from something does not make it right. Feel free to try again. As for "immortality," you're reading too much into that remark.

Quote:

Why does your life have to be at stake to justify animal testing?

You're misinterpreting my comment which was more about human frailty. If my brother's murdered, I might favor the death penalty for the assailant (despite longstanding opposition to capital punishment).

----------
Belz

Quote:

You haven't demonstrated your claim either.

Very mature. You're the one who decided to resurrect this thread. I suggest you see my comments earlier where suffering vis-a-vis speciesism was certainly discussed.

Quote:

1) Organ donors

Great. And how many animals volunteer for experiments?

Quote:

2) Are you advocating that we don't help people who need medical treatment because we need to be nice to animals ? You'll excuse me if I suffer from specieism, but I'll help my kind first. Doesn't stop me from caring about the suffering of animals, though.

Again, this circle of concern is arbitrary. What if my brother needs a heart transplant? Is it acceptable to say "I don't care if I have to forcibly remove an organ from a stranger. My own kind comes first."

Quote:

Bias ? I am saying that the use of animals is a) necessary, b) desirable and c) preferable. Moral doesn't enter into it. If it did, I'd add that we try to be as humane as possible within our objectives.

If it's necessary then "desirable" and "preferable" do not matter. Incidentally, "desirable" and "preferable" are essentially synonyms, so you're already trying to inflate your case with mindless bullet points which have currency among people who majored in business rather than philosophy.

Why impose any regulation on treating animals in a "humane" manner? If "my own kind" is all that matters, then why burden the progress of research with what happens to the Other?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Cain

Very mature.

How is that in any way a response to my post ?

Quote:

You're the one who decided to resurrect this thread.

It's not like it was dead since 2006 or anything.

Quote:

Great. And how many animals volunteer for experiments?

How is that relevant ?

Quote:

Again, this circle of concern is arbitrary.

No, it isn't. It's perfectly normal to care for people in your more restricted group first. In this case, we're talking about a group of beings that aren't even in the same league. The difference between humans and non-human animals is so large, it's no wonder we didn't consider ourselves to be animals for so long, even with all the biological similarities.

Quote:

What if my brother needs a heart transplant? Is it acceptable to say "I don't care if I have to forcibly remove an organ from a stranger. My own kind comes first."

Taking a principle to its insane extreme is not a good way to make an argument.

Quote:

If it's necessary then "desirable" and "preferable" do not matter.

It's not necessary in all cases.

Quote:

Incidentally, "desirable" and "preferable" are essentially synonyms

"Essentially" ? They are not in any way synonyms. One means "I want it" and the other means "it's better than the alternative".

Quote:

so you're already trying to inflate your case with mindless bullet points which have currency among people who majored in business rather than philosophy.

This does not follow from your claim that "desirable" and "preferable" are synonyms.

Quote:

Why impose any regulation on treating animals in a "humane" manner? If "my own kind" is all that matters, then why burden the progress of research with what happens to the Other?

When did I say that it was all that matters ? Why are they mutually exclusive, suddenly ?

The problem with very many discussions on this forum is that most of them end up being steered into irrelevancy by posters who try to push a ridiculously-simplified or exaggerated version of their opposition's arguments as their actual opinion. Why can't we just discuss what the other person is saying rather than a strawman version of what they are saying ?

[Estellea]

Originally Posted by Cain

When calling out something as a straw man, I'm sad to report that you actually have to identify what makes it a straw man. Simply saying it's "obvious" is preaching to the choir.

It's obvious that we don't advocate murdering people for accessories so to respond to an argument that hasn't been made is full of straw.

Quote:

This does not follow. That we personally benefit from something does not make it right. Feel free to try again. As for "immortality," you're reading too much into that remark.

Of course it follows, at least to most of us. And yes, because we can confer benefit to so many, "it" does make it right to humanely test on animals. That "we don't live forever" doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for a quality of life and even life itself. That you said, "we don't live forever" and my subsequent remark does not indicate at all that I read too much into it. It is immaterial that we don't live forever.

Quote:

You're misinterpreting my comment which was more about human frailty. If my brother's murdered, I might favor the death penalty for the assailant (despite longstanding opposition to capital punishment).

Perhaps your human frailty. The fact that faced with imminent death would change your stance should tell you something about the weakness of such a stance in the first place.

Este