• Welcome to the Fable Community Forum!

    We're a group of fans who are passionate about the Fable series and video gaming.

    Register Log in

Animal Rights Activists: paragons or menaces to society?

Angel

Down with this sort of thing
Guildmaster
Town Guard
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
8,400
Reaction score
1,492
Points
365
Ok, so I'm wondering what you guys think of animal rights activists. By this I mean the sort who (often aggressively) lobby for no animal testing for medications, no scientific research etc - not make-up or perfume, but stuff that directly affects the quality of human life.

Basically, a number of major airlines and ferry companies have, due to heavy pressure from activists on various social media sites and the concurrent hijacking of digital means of communications, stopped importing animals (rats, mice and rabbits only) which are specifically modified to display the human-like effects of certain serious and incurable diseases. To protect their own staff from possible violence or other retaliation, these companies have complied with the demands of the activists and are no longer bringing these animals into the UK. Activists are calling it a victory but the scientific community are concerned about the potential harm this can cause if they cannot continue their research.

I have my own views which I may or may not post later but for now, what are your thoughts? Are you an activist yourself? If so, for what reasons? If you're not an activist, why? Do you think they are right or wrong in preventing scientists from conducting medical research into things like cancer, AIDS, motor neuron disease, diabetes, Alzheimers etc? Do you believe that animals deserve the same rights as humans or perhaps even more rights?

Just want to reiterate - I'm not talking about the fur trade, bizarre "health" foods involving endangered species, vanity products or the like. I mean specifically medical research.
 

D3m190d

Your Future Emperor
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
2,730
Reaction score
675
Points
275
Age
29
I do think animals deserve rights, in the sense that they are in fact living beings. However, their thoughts are less complex, their emotions are less significant and their pressence is of less benefot to the world than that of humans. Well, humans that don't sit on their ass all day, leeching off other's work.

I also think that it's important that animals that are able to survive in nature shouldn't be 'used up', because they come in handy. It's humanities fault if a species goes extinct because we want to use them so badly. It should be noted, though, that if a species can't survive in nature, and our efforts to help them out are of little effect, we shouldn't help them. Well, not there. You could bring them over and take care of them yourself. But species have always gone extinct in the past, and it's part of a natural process. If we try to involve too much in nature, it's us who ofset the balance.

In the subject of science: I do think that it's important to keep testing and try to cure diseases. Since ancient times, we have been progressing in many fields. Now using animals is a tool that the medical field requires to keep going. Animal rights activists that stop this progress are just stopping the progress we have been making for thousands of years. Do they really think this is the epitome of human existence? That right now is the time we can stop doing stuff, because there isn't anything else we can do?

Anyway, I do realize where those activists are coming from, and I'm not completely heartless. Part of that shows itself in that I want the animals to be treated as best as possible, hopefully without any suffering. But another part of my sympathy shows itself in that I want the medical field to develop further, in order to give people better lives. In the end, humans can gain more satisfaction out of life than other animals.

I have to say, though: If diseases can be cured by testing on animals, we should also use those cures on animals that have those diseases. They are the ones paying for it, so it wouldn't be fair to not give them anything in return.

Well, this is my view as of yet. Maybe someone will show me I'm completely oblivious to how it actually is and show me what the truth is like. :p
 

Quistrix

I can’t believe it’s not queenofdisco!
Town Guard
Premium
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
3,566
Reaction score
2,466
Points
285
I think allowing any animal to suffer inhumanely is wrong. Point blank. And if I witnessed mistreatment of any kind I don't believe I could stand to let it happen. But I would never get violent in terms of any protest. Most animal protesters - PETA for example - take the violent approach and they believe animals deserve the same rights as human beings. I feel strongly about the mistreatment of animals, but I don't believe they deserve the same rights, or more.

In terms of medical study and the like - I feel conflicted. I'm all for benefiting the human race, finding cures to the world's most cruel of diseases, illnesses and bodily disorders. But the idea that an animal may be suffering to supply us with a solution to these things makes me feel quite frankly very uncomfortable and ashamed that the human race can't find other capable means of medical study. But as it stands, there is no other mean that is as successful. The idea of a young child suffering from cancer also makes me feel very sad, and the idea that disallowing the capable research to cure cancer makes me feel just as ashamed. As it goes, research, research, research is the only way to find cures for these ailments. Though there may be other methods of research that does not involve animals being studied, there is no other way that has been nearly as successful as animal testing, as far as I'm aware. And as uncomfortable and sad as it makes me, people need to take that into consideration if we are ever to find ways to combat the world's most cruel of human diseases, illnesses and bodily disorders, sacrifices will always have to be made. And remember, cures for diseases that animals suffer from can also be researched and fought against.
 

Gikoku

Well-Known Member
Town Guard
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
5,818
Reaction score
2,612
Points
305
I don't agree with them being inferior in the complexity of their emotions and thoughts as a justification for it being okay to test on them. Animals bleed, feel pain, and can express emotions as well or almost as well as us humans (depending on the species). Decades ago many scientists actually believed that dogs & cats couldn't feel pain or express emotions justifying their testing & experiments... boy were they ever wrong. If inferiority makes it okay, then why not go testing on the mentally challenged? Oh of course, they're humans, thus automatically making it completely unethical.

Though I personally don't like it myself, it is a necessary evil. The animal testing is not used for only the benefit of man, but there is also animal testing for the benefit of other animals as well. One diseased animal's testing can help open the door for better treatment or even a cure for millions of other animals that suffer from the same or other conditions. Sadly, a lot of the activists (like PETA, as hypocritical as they are) don't understand this and blindly protest against all animal testing like it's some sort of holocaust evil of mad scientists that only strive for the betterment of human superiority.

It would be nice if they could perform all the testing without endangering or killing the animals, but of course, it isn't that easy nor ever that simple.
 

Angel

Down with this sort of thing
Guildmaster
Town Guard
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
8,400
Reaction score
1,492
Points
365
At what point do you draw the line (if at all) within the realm of animal testing when it concerns your own well-being, or that of the people you know? If you are someone who is completely against the use of animals in testing, how far do you take it?

I mean, should a "true" activist only accept medication that has NOT been tested on animals? Should they refuse a procedure because an animal had to undergo it first before it was considered acceptable for human use? How about if they were to develop a life-threatening illness or something debilitating - should they refuse medical care that was in any way, shape or form involving the use of animals in creating it safely for humans? How would one even find out if one's medicinal care was tested on animals in the first place? Should they even go as far as to refuse EVERY form of treatment that HISTORICALLY has used animals in its production and testing?

Do any of you believe activists have the right to prevent ALL ill people from getting a cure for their condition because of how they feel about the issue? And if they do take medications that have been tested on animals, does that make them a hypocrite, do you think?

If you are against animal testing for medicinal purposes - even if it's only up to a certain point - would you still stand by your principles, knowing that it could condemn many, if the only cure for cancer or dementia were to come from animal testing?
 

Gikoku

Well-Known Member
Town Guard
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
5,818
Reaction score
2,612
Points
305
At what point do you draw the line (if at all) within the realm of animal testing when it concerns your own well-being, or that of the people you know? If you are someone who is completely against the use of animals in testing, how far do you take it?

I mean, should a "true" activist only accept medication that has NOT been tested on animals? Should they refuse a procedure because an animal had to undergo it first before it was considered acceptable for human use? How about if they were to develop a life-threatening illness or something debilitating - should they refuse medical care that was in any way, shape or form involving the use of animals in creating it safely for humans? How would one even find out if one's medicinal care was tested on animals in the first place? Should they even go as far as to refuse EVERY form of treatment that HISTORICALLY has used animals in its production and testing?

Do any of you believe activists have the right to prevent ALL ill people from getting a cure for their condition because of how they feel about the issue? And if they do take medications that have been tested on animals, does that make them a hypocrite, do you think?

If you are against animal testing for medicinal purposes - even if it's only up to a certain point - would you still stand by your principles, knowing that it could condemn many, if the only cure for cancer or dementia were to come from animal testing?
Like I said before, it is a necessary evil, and without it medicine would not be as advanced as it is today for both humans and animals, I can only imagine how many would be dead right now if not for it. You either take the bad with the good or take nothing at all, until a better alternative is available.

This is what I was referring to with the hypocrisy of some activists such as those in PETA, they're so against animal testing for life saving & medical advancement, but yet there are those in the organization & followings who take medication for their illnesses. The same medication that could only have been possible through animal testing, not at all surprising what a person will do to increase their longevity when their own life is in danger. It all comes down to how much you value your own life. But then you also have those with the excuse of "It helps me live longer to fight for the cause." Hypocritical.

Do they have the right? Well, who am I, or you, or anyone else to say what they have the right to do or not do? No one, freedom of speech, if they want to protest then they have the right to protest all the hell they want.

However, I feel the better course of action would be to protest and aim for animal testing to be more humane and safe for animals, rather than destroying one thing completely for another (resulting in one step forward, two steps back).
 

Tsuyu

is wearing Queen's lace panties.
Town Guard
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
11,178
Reaction score
2,025
Points
365
Age
33
It is better than human testing á la Nazi Germany

*shrugs*
 

queenofdisco

Well-Known Member
Premium
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
2,341
Reaction score
1,147
Points
275
I read the thread title as Animal rights activities.

I couldn't care if people test new products on people but it does bother me with animals, animals are food not a test subject for our weird magic pills which make us live longer.
 

Tsuyu

is wearing Queen's lace panties.
Town Guard
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
11,178
Reaction score
2,025
Points
365
Age
33
I read the thread title as Animal rights activities.

I couldn't care if people test new products on people but it does bother me with animals, animals are food not a test subject for our weird magic pills which make us live longer.

Dr. Mengele says hi. Seriously, would you rather they tested it on actual humans? If it is important research in the name of advancing the human race such as the cure for cancer, I have no quarrel with it being tested on animals*.

* Cosmetics research can go eff it self.
 

Skotekal

Sheeple President
Premium
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
4,497
Reaction score
301
Points
265
Age
28
I don't agree with them being inferior in the complexity of their emotions and thoughts as a justification for it being okay to test on them. Animals bleed, feel pain, and can express emotions as well or almost as well as us humans (depending on the species). Decades ago many scientists actually believed that dogs & cats couldn't feel pain or express emotions justifying their testing & experiments... boy were they ever wrong. If inferiority makes it okay, then why not go testing on the mentally challenged? Oh of course, they're humans, thus automatically making it completely unethical.

Though I personally don't like it myself, it is a necessary evil. The animal testing is not used for only the benefit of man, but there is also animal testing for the benefit of other animals as well. One diseased animal's testing can help open the door for better treatment or even a cure for millions of other animals that suffer from the same or other conditions. Sadly, a lot of the activists (like PETA, as hypocritical as they are) don't understand this and blindly protest against all animal testing like it's some sort of holocaust evil of mad scientists that only strive for the betterment of human superiority.

It would be nice if they could perform all the testing without endangering or killing the animals, but of course, it isn't that easy nor ever that simple.

Well said.

I'm on the fence about it. I'm not saying it isn't cruel or anything or that humans have a higher value than animals, but it does really help us a lot. And I don't agree with violent protesting when it comes to stuff like this. Sure, wave your signs all you want, but that should be about it.
 

Hermit

Boy next door
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,281
Reaction score
425
Points
235
These types of animal rights activists need to find something better to do with their time. There are so many problems that such a large group of focused people could solve, ones that are much more pressing than this. It sucks, sure, but at least something good comes out of it, and it's not all bad.

Brings to mind a part in Jurassic Park 2 where Vince Vaughn steals the bullets from a group of people who had SAVED VINCE AND HIS FRIEND'S LIVES and were only there to take one or two Dinos for their zoos. Vince's action condemns most of that group to death for having the gall to put something in a zoo. Even though WE PUT ANIMALS IN ZOOS ALL THE TIME.

Oh, and I hate mice. With a passion. Almost as much as I hate pigeons.

Yes, experimenting on animals sucks, but you know what else sucks? Watching your loved ones die and suffer from diseases that could have been cured.
 

queenofdisco

Well-Known Member
Premium
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
2,341
Reaction score
1,147
Points
275
Dr. Mengele says hi.
Hows the devil is that ol' scamp? Say hi back for me.

would you rather they tested it on actual humans? If it is important research in the name of advancing the human race

Depends on what it is, cosmetics I'm against, but I think you can't be moral and test something on another living being knowing it could have dire consequences whether human or any other animal. If it ****s up its going to **** up so its okay for the animal to be in pain but newtonforbid a human should feel any suffering.

Because we're so much better than animals? I think I see where you're coming from and I agree but I don't consider humans above animals in any way.

Edit: lol check dat out "****" is blocked but ****s isn't lololol.
 

Tsuyu

is wearing Queen's lace panties.
Town Guard
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
11,178
Reaction score
2,025
Points
365
Age
33
I'm just saying that if a few rats have to kick the bucket for us to cure cancer, I say go for it. The little f****ers owe us for the Black Death anyway.
 

cheezMcNASTY

Edible in some countries
Premium
Joined
Jan 6, 2007
Messages
6,176
Reaction score
1,636
Points
315
There are many points where activists are fighting for good causes. Animal cruelty is a terrible reality; much like harming the environment among others. Even in the cases of something as subjective as abortion, every activist group, to their credit, genuinely believes that their cause is just. They deserve that much respect, and they deserve to give their discontent voice just as everyone else has a right to hear what they say and judge them.

What they do not deserve is the right to forcibly place their beliefs on others, which is what many extremist groups are frowned upon for doing. Bombing abortion clinics, throwing paint on people's fur coats, and other such acts is where the line is drawn. That's where the very idea of freedom of speech ends. The saying goes "the right to throw a punch ends at another man's nose." When they violate that right, all bets are off and they are no longer simply engaging in activism. I'd go so far as to call it terrorism because it's trying to scare people into doing what the activist group believes in. It's wrong no matter how you cut it. Still, I wouldn't blame individual activists for doing it, I'd blame the activist group. If you ask me, it's more a result of mob mentality than anything else.
 

Arseface

Look at me still talking when theres science to do
Premium
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
6,977
Reaction score
853
Points
315
My view: Animals are living things that have the capacity to experience pain and fear, and the thought of subjecting an animal to those sensations is quite abhorrent to me. It's why I became a vegetarian recently, and it's why I'm pretty sure I'll stick to it.
 
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Points
3
Age
33
mences they cause more damage than they fix, yes animals deserve rights but not at the cost of wildlife rights!
 

Tsuyu

is wearing Queen's lace panties.
Town Guard
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
11,178
Reaction score
2,025
Points
365
Age
33
My view: Animals are living things that have the capacity to experience pain and fear, and the thought of subjecting an animal to those sensations is quite abhorrent to me. It's why I became a vegetarian recently, and it's why I'm pretty sure I'll stick to it.

You do realize that slaughtering animals for food is such a fast process they feel no pain nor fear?
 

Arseface

Look at me still talking when theres science to do
Premium
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
6,977
Reaction score
853
Points
315
You do realize that slaughtering animals for food is such a fast process they feel no pain nor fear?

First of all: How do you know what goes through an animal's mind as it's in line to be killed? I'm also sure you realise that not every abattoir, particularly in third world countries or cultures where the animal has to be killed in a certain way, would treat their animals humanely. It's been a big deal in Australia recently that some of our cattle were being sold to Indonesian abattoirs where they would torture the animals for no reason before killing them.

Second: If someone was going to kill and eat you, even if you knew you weren't going to feel any fear or pain, would you be happy to let it happen? It's about more than mistreating animals for me, it's about basic respect for life.

I don't mean to sound preachy when I'm saying this, it's completely my opinion. You guys can do what you want. Just sharing my thoughts.
 
Top