|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:05 pm
Quote: Where as cows are lined up and basically die in their sleep. See the difference? Still don't? Well, testing on the animals involves them having alot of pain for humans and they don't deserve that. And instant death is better than years and years of suffering that only leads to a slow death. Actually, food animals are treated horrendously, that's why most of us vegetarians are vegetarians. From birth until they're big enough/fat enough to be killed, many animals live in tiny cages so small they can't turn around, surrounded by their own excrement, with deformities caused by the cramped conditions, among other things. As for "instant death," that only happens to the lucky ones - many animals aren't stunned properly and are alive when the packers cut them, skin them, and/or put them in boiling water, depending on the species. I'm not against eating animals per se, myself, but the cruelty to food animals is extreme. I suggest watching Meet Your Meat (a google search will find it) if you don't want to take my word for it.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:42 pm
Well the way I understand it is that, it is against the law to do it unhumanely. So I stick to my opinion. Yes, I've seen the PETA videos, no I don't think that that is what actually happens. Places can be shut down if they aren't killing the animals humanely. Also, if the animals are actually living in their own poop, do you know how many diseases could be contracted, which could then be transferred to humans? Most people who eat meat would be dead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:32 pm
Money can get you around most laws - the beef association is a HUGE lobby in Washington. There are many books that talk about how ineffective the inspectors are and the intimidation rampant in the industry.
Out of curiosity, do you believe the videos were faked? As well as all the books with first hand accounts?
And yes, I do know how many diseases - that's why you're supposed to cook your meat before you eat it. Where do you think all that E. Coli and Salmonella come from?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:57 am
I agree that money can get you around most laws. I do believe that the videos were faked, probably by peta itself. If they were living in their own poop, there would be way more diseases then just those you listed. Some of which, probably couldn't be killed off with heat. Also, the strains get stronger and stronger as time goes by. Meaning eventually even E. Coli and Salmonella would be heat resistant.
Also, I've had first hand accounts, I've been/seen several ranches that supplied meat. And they were all free range. I'm not saying that every last ranch that supplies meat is free range, just that many are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:34 pm
Interesting. What about videos not by Peta, such as Earthlings, made by Nation Earth, which has no affiliation to Peta? So you do acknowledge that not all animals are free range?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:16 pm
marshjazz I agree that money can get you around most laws. I do believe that the videos were faked, probably by peta itself. If they were living in their own poop, there would be way more diseases then just those you listed.
Also, fowl slaughterhouses and farms are way worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:56 am
I do agree that not all animals are free range, however many are. I have not seen these videos and I shall watch them. However, they could just as easily be the same deal as peta.
It actually isn't that hard to get diseases from animals poop. Did you know that pregnent or nursing women should not clean the cat litter box, because diseases can be contacted by doing something as simple as that? Your also supposed to wear gloves and wash your hands right after your finished. No matter what. Also to prevent disease in the cats, the litter box should be cleaned every one to three days, depending on the size and number of cats in the household. It is not that hard to contract disease from animals. Or animals to contract diseases from themselves. Although cats are not cows, this is just an example. I know more about cats then I do cows.
While your correct that people can drink their own pee, that is because it is basically water. Which is why, if you drink nothing but water for a whole week, your pee should come out clear. It is only yellow because of all the different beverages we put into our system. Water has no nutritional value so it basically just pases through your system and then you pee it out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2007 7:16 pm
It seems wrong to experiment on animals for the first two purposes (and is wrong for the third one). In my opinion, it depends on the experiment. I say this, because some experiments I've heard of aren't bad, but some are cruel and just plain hideous. One of the alright ones was with monkeys and it was to test if monkeys, like human children, sensed if they were being given an "unfair deal". The monkeys were given coins and trained to trade the coins for grapes, a treat for them. Some had to trade with the coin. Some got grapes without exchanging the coin (they got them for free). Some got cucumber slices (an even better treat) for free. The monkeys who had to pay, or who didn't get the cucumber slices got upset and threw fits. Now, aside from getting the monkeys upset, that didn't serious harm them. Now look at this next experiment, which my health teacher told us about. The experiment was to see, though a monkey again, how far a human would go to get high off of drugs. The monkey was hooked up to a machine. When it tapped a button, a needle gave it a shot of marijuana straight to its brain. To get the next shot, the monkey needed to push the button twice as many times as the time previous. So, to get the second shot, it pushed the button two times. Third shot, four times. Fourth shot, eight times. Soon, the monkey was just sitting there, push the button thousands of times, just to get high. I found that so upsetting, I felt really sorry for that monkey! sad
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:59 am
serendipitynsa Actually, food animals are treated horrendously, that's why most of us vegetarians are vegetarians. From birth until they're big enough/fat enough to be killed, many animals live in tiny cages so small they can't turn around, surrounded by their own excrement, with deformities caused by the cramped conditions, among other things. As for "instant death," that only happens to the lucky ones - many animals aren't stunned properly and are alive when the packers cut them, skin them, and/or put them in boiling water, depending on the species. I'm not against eating animals per se, myself, but the cruelty to food animals is extreme. I suggest watching Meet Your Meat (a google search will find it) if you don't want to take my word for it. Generalisation! I read the other points you made before posting that but still. Not everyone here is in America and that means not all animals are treated the same all over the world. In fact all meat and eggs are labeled to tell you whether they are free range or not. So if you are against animals cruelty you can buy free range stuff, it normally tastes better too. There is also normally more free range stuff in a shop then not, so that shows that the animals are free range. Also the farms have to have check-ups and you can't just let animals out for one day to pass the test as they will show symptoms of being kept locked up. Not all animals are free range because its cheaper to keep them and they get more money, though you get more free range stuff here then not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 9:36 pm
I realize that not everyone here is from the US (I actually mentioned that in my first post about animal testing) but in the "developed" world I rather think methods are the same - hence why there's vegetarians in Europe as well as here. Free range has very little meaning (in the US, anyway) regarding chickens - the chickens can be kept shut in a barn, so long as they aren't in cages they're "free range." Free range cattle do have a much better life than stockyard cattle, but they're still slaughtered in horrific conditions. Wikipedia's article about free range is pretty interesting. I will freely admit that I don't know a whole lot about how things are in Europe, but I do know that there are many vegetarians there and I have to believe they have some reason to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 1:38 am
i think testing animals for cosmetics is okay, because they are not essentially hurting the animal. i mean a little shampoo or a little soap will not hurt. but anything mentally or physically hurting the animal should not be done. i don't think it is right to take out a piece of the brain, to see how the animal reacts, or to deprive the animal of sleep, because that is just inhumanly wrong. i mean, would you want a piece of your brain to be taken out, or would you want to be deprived of sleep for a certain period of time, to see how you would react?
i think anything that hurts the animal physically or mentally, should be done on humans. because a human can state their opinon, if they want the test to be done, or don't want the test to be done. an animal cannot say that, they have no choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 3:52 am
Most vegetarians I know won't eat meat just because they don't like the taste. The vegetarians I know because of animal rights have such rubbish reasons for it. There is nothing wrong with most farm animals in this country.
Neutin - It has been previously said that the testing of shampoo and soap is tested on the animals, which irritates the skin and can cause many problems in the animals which can include physically harming them. Remember this is before they are 'safe' to use!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:56 am
i believe that animal testing is bad, but i also think that its worse to become a vegetarian because of it or not use the products that were tested on animals. I mean, well the animal died for your sake and if you just not use the product and waste it or something, its like the animal suffered for nothing. Just thank the animal silently for suffering for you and continue using the product.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:45 am
Remove Most vegetarians I know won't eat meat just because they don't like the taste. The vegetarians I know because of animal rights have such rubbish reasons for it. There is nothing wrong with most farm animals in this country. Neutin - It has been previously said that the testing of shampoo and soap is tested on the animals, which irritates the skin and can cause many problems in the animals which can include physically harming them. Remember this is before they are 'safe' to use! that is true, but i don't think that shampoo or soap is going to do much harm. i mean if the producers want the product to be okay, they aren't going to put in acid or nuclear radioactive things in their soap, because then ofcourse no one would buy the product. & if the animal is in pain from irritation of skin they could probably give it a bath, and rinse the product away hopefully removing its pain. & if that doesn't work, then the testers would probably give the animal soothing cream or something to help it.
[do testers help the animal if it is in pain after a test?]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 12:23 pm
@Brittany: Vegatariens not eating meat save some animals in the process.
@neutin: It doesn't matter wether or not it is radioactive, it can still cause harm. Go back and re-read through the thread. I posted this point so pay close attension to my posts. That is why they make animal only shampoo's and the only human shampoo you can use on an animal is baby shampoo. You want to know why? Animals skin is highly sensitive, just like a baby's. So just because you don't think it'll harm them doesn't mean it wont. If you didn't know chocolate is poisoniness to dogs, would you think it was? Probably not.
And no, usually testers will not do anything for the animal if the notice side effects because they need to figure out what all the side effects are. Leading all the way to death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
