Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Animals are conscious and should be treated

animals conscious

  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#16    FurthurBB

FurthurBB

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,365 posts
  • Joined:21 May 2008

Posted 25 September 2012 - 01:45 PM

View PostRender, on 25 September 2012 - 11:45 AM, said:

i think this is very much related:
http://www.unexplain...howtopic=234619

and also the threads that have gone before that about kittens whose eyelids were sewed together as experiments.
And also a thread about cockroaches being controlled with chip implants.
And now also a new thread about worms' behaviour being controlled.


serious high scaled debates are needed again obviously.


The original studies on kittens, and even worse taking out parts of infant monkey brains, taught us so much.  I know they sound horrible, but the studies benefited both human and animal care.  I do not think they need to be repeated though.  I think pretty much all that can be learned from those studies was learned long ago and if there is a little more to learn that the benefit would not outweigh the cruelty involved.


#17    Neognosis

Neognosis

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,159 posts
  • Joined:12 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:rochester, NY USA

  • Just try not to hurt anybody, ok?

Posted 25 September 2012 - 02:27 PM

Quote

That means that animals will remain in our food chain... we just have to get accustomed to the idea that we don't have to torture something before we want to eat it.

agree.

Quote

They have the same emotions as us, the same basic motivations, they are the same as us!

Disagree. While I think most animals feel fear, excitement, happiness, etc. they generally don't have the same cognitive ability as human beings. Which is not to say that animals should not be treated humanely.  But when I hear that there is no difference between humans and other animals, I know right off that the person making that claim is not arguing from a reasonable position.

Edited by Neognosis, 25 September 2012 - 02:29 PM.


#18    None of the above

None of the above

    Psychic Spy

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,418 posts
  • Joined:20 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 25 September 2012 - 04:08 PM

View PostNeognosis, on 25 September 2012 - 02:27 PM, said:

Disagree. While I think most animals feel fear, excitement, happiness, etc. they generally don't have the same cognitive ability as human beings. Which is not to say that animals should not be treated humanely.  But when I hear that there is no difference between humans and other animals, I know right off that the person making that claim is not arguing from a reasonable position.

The same excuse has been used in the past to excuse experimentation on 'differently abled' humans.

When I read a post like that I know 'right off' that it is simply an attempt to rationalise cruelty and mistreatment while abdicating responsibility for the suffering caused.


#19    GreenmansGod

GreenmansGod

    Bio-Electric sentient being.

  • Member
  • 9,725 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Hurricane State

  • May the laughter ye give today return to thee 3 fold.

Posted 25 September 2012 - 04:15 PM

Being killed in a slaughter house or being kill on the African plains by lions or cape hunting dogs?  Which would you pick?  I don't know, that is a toss up.  I think the factory farms where it is there for a while are the worst. I just can't understand how keeping a sick animal alive long enough to slaughter is more cost effective than keeping a heathy animal for the same about of time.

View PostImaginarynumber1, on 25 September 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

Pretty sure my cat is actively trying to kill me.
Pretty sure all cats are actively trying to kill all humans.

As long as I keep the bowl full I think I am safe.  I might wrong, though. :unsure2:

"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible." Salman Rushdie

#20    Neognosis

Neognosis

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,159 posts
  • Joined:12 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:rochester, NY USA

  • Just try not to hurt anybody, ok?

Posted 25 September 2012 - 04:43 PM

Quote

The same excuse has been used in the past to excuse experimentation on 'differently abled' humans.

That's an illogical response, comparing two different things that are unrelated to evoke an emotional response.

Disabled human beings are a higher life form than animals.


Quote

When I read a post like that I know 'right off' that it is simply an attempt to rationalise cruelty and mistreatment while abdicating responsibility for the suffering caused.

That conclusion is in line with the kind of logic you have been displaying in this thread. An emotional response that doesn't really pay attention to what has been written.

I will quote myself:

Quote


Which is not to say that animals should not be treated humanely.



#21    None of the above

None of the above

    Psychic Spy

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,418 posts
  • Joined:20 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 25 September 2012 - 05:25 PM

View PostNeognosis, on 25 September 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

That's an illogical response, comparing two different things that are unrelated to evoke an emotional response.

Disabled human beings are a higher life form than animals.




That conclusion is in line with the kind of logic you have been displaying in this thread. An emotional response that doesn't really pay attention to what has been written.

I will quote myself:

You actually said: "While I think most animals feel fear, excitement, happiness, etc. they generally don't have the same cognitive ability as human beings"
So you DID use congitive ability as your criteria for valuing or devaluing the lives of animals. As I pointed out, that has been done before and used to devalue the 'differently abled'.
If you want to now play the 'higher lifeform' card and step away from your earlier comment then I'm prepared to let you try and spell out your posiiton. Lets see if you can make a fist of it.


#22    HollyDolly

HollyDolly

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,317 posts
  • Joined:02 Aug 2006

Posted 25 September 2012 - 05:29 PM

View PostHartmut, on 25 September 2012 - 11:41 AM, said:

Hi Still Waters,
If we can accept, or at least consider, that the Energy/Force, popularly knows as God, exist - as proposed by Professor Sheldrakee's 'Morphic Field' or the various 'String' 'Dark matter' etc.theories by Hawkins and others....
- than we may realise that we are not God, but certainly a part of that unknown God-Like Energy, which has manifested into THE EVERYTHING that is - in and on every level of existence.
If so, than we are all connected and in that sense there are no "aliens", or animals which are not a part of that ONE Creative Force; which in my opinion gives ALL living creatures conscious awareness - and therefore need and must be respected.
Oh I agree with you.Good points.


#23    Imaginarynumber1

Imaginarynumber1

    I am not an irrational number

  • Member
  • 4,667 posts
  • Joined:22 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 25 September 2012 - 06:44 PM

View PostDarkwind, on 25 September 2012 - 04:15 PM, said:



As long as I keep the bowl full I think I am safe.  I might wrong, though. :unsure2:

Posted Image

Edited by Imaginarynumber1, 25 September 2012 - 06:44 PM.

"A cat has nine lives. For three he plays, for three he strays, and for the last three he stays."


July 17th, 2008 (Full moon the next night)

RAPTORS! http://www.unexplain...pic=233151&st=0


#24    None of the above

None of the above

    Psychic Spy

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,418 posts
  • Joined:20 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 25 September 2012 - 07:58 PM

View PostImaginarynumber1, on 25 September 2012 - 06:44 PM, said:

Posted Image

You know that they steal the breath of babies as well?


#25    Imaginarynumber1

Imaginarynumber1

    I am not an irrational number

  • Member
  • 4,667 posts
  • Joined:22 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 25 September 2012 - 10:51 PM

View PostAtlantia, on 25 September 2012 - 07:58 PM, said:

You know that they steal the breath of babies as well?

Don't forget socks. My cat always steals mine and my girlfriends socks. Yet I always get the blame for losing them....hmmmm....

"A cat has nine lives. For three he plays, for three he strays, and for the last three he stays."


July 17th, 2008 (Full moon the next night)

RAPTORS! http://www.unexplain...pic=233151&st=0


#26    redhen

redhen

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,825 posts
  • Joined:14 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Samsara

Posted 25 September 2012 - 11:17 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 25 September 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

That is something that was known for quite a while. Yes animals should be treated with the respect they deserve and animals should have rights.

What rights do you want to confer on animals, legal rights? human rights? Animals only need one right, the right not to be property.

Quote

But that does not take away the fact that it will be humans who will "award" these rights and not the animals who will fight for it.

Are you saying that if you can't fight for your own rights, you don't deserve any? What about slavery. child labour, female emancipation,  the disabled?


Quote

That means that animals will remain in our food chain... we just have to get accustomed to the idea that we don't have to torture something before we want to eat it.

I don't follow. Since sentient, non-human animals can't fight for their own rights, we have the moral right to eat them?

"Whenever people say "We mustn't be sentimental", you can take it they are about to do something cruel. And if they add, "We must be realistic", they mean they are going to make money out of it. These slogans have a long history. After being used to justify slave traders, ruthless industrialists, and contractors who had found the most economically "realistic" method of cleaning a chimney was to force a small child to climb it, they now have been passed on, like an heirloom, to the factory farmers." --   Brigid Brophy

Edited by redhen, 25 September 2012 - 11:19 PM.


#27    Render

Render

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,080 posts
  • Joined:23 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 September 2012 - 08:02 AM

View PostFurthurBB, on 25 September 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

The original studies on kittens, and even worse taking out parts of infant monkey brains, taught us so much.  I know they sound horrible, but the studies benefited both human and animal care.  I do not think they need to be repeated though.  I think pretty much all that can be learned from those studies was learned long ago and if there is a little more to learn that the benefit would not outweigh the cruelty involved.


I don't disagree with learning from scientific experiments. I do notice that animals are still being used for troubling experiments where they can easily be replaced by humans using harmless techniques. Or some cases where animal testing is completely unnecessary in this "modern" age.
(for example the link i posted, but the thread was removed..so im unclear on the fact if i can still mention it, but i don't see why i shouldn't since it concerns an experiment on cats at the University of Wisconsin where they destroyed the inner ears and drilled holes in its head, while taking notes where they mentioned that the animal showed clear signs of depression. The school uses 30 cats a year and does these kind of meaningless experiments to get continuous funding. While the same results can and are aquired through experiments on humans using harmless scans.)

The fact that they researched if ppl thought it was OK to use kittens and sew their eyes shut, and when the experiment was over they were annihilated, and the majority said yes. Is a bit worrying to me. Especially since ppl should realise that we live in times where such research can be done in much more animal friendly and humane ways.

Also the cockroach mind control thread, where ppl were overly enthusiastic about it. Completely dismissing ethics in Science. And also completely dismissing the fact that the scientists admit they don't need to use real life cockroaches, but the alternative of creating a full robot cockroach takes more time and money. Which is a very important field and a field that researchers in science should't just be able to easily dismiss.
It doesn't put science as a whole in a good spotlight when researchers come over so pretentious that they do not have to answer to or even discuss ethics. Again, this is a undeniable field and of extreme importance. Especially due to the increasing technologicalization of society. It is not dismissable.

Or the fact that recently some major cosmetic companies went back to unnecessary animal testing just so they can sell their products on the asian market.


Research is obviously needed here to understand in what degree this animal/insect is concious about it and could experience discomfort. And following on that think about how some experiments can take place or how the same level of results can be acquired without letting discomfort, or even more extreme emotions, be an issue.
To just walk all over this very real issue and acting like science should be superior to ethics is too ridiculous to even suggest. Ethics in Science is a very real field.
More debates are needed.

Edited by Render, 26 September 2012 - 08:06 AM.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users