Originally posted by: Legal_My_Deagle
Originally posted by: KingofNewYork
Yeah if you want to just make up stupid hypothetical stories about how you are deriving some tiny benefit from an animals suffering you can. But obviously we aren't talking about someone getting their jollies by torturing animals.
Yeah if you want to just make up a stupid logically inconsistant system of completely arbitrary distinctions about the world, then be my guest. If you want to actually convince anybody of your viewpoint however then you should give some good backing for what you are saying instead of simply just insisting you are right.
If you actually had reasons for insisting that I shouldn't torture animals for fun, then let's hear it! Otherwise you can at least stop pretending you are convincing anyone.
Apparently, though, Errrrrrr is advocating torturing animals to get your jollies. So, I guess my point is moot and I should have spelled it out Here I was thinking that was an argument no sane person would take.
Have at it Errrrrr. I don't think you will find many supporters.
I believe humans are much more important than animals (which I thought was another point no sane person would argue, but we have a few sane people arguing against that in this thread as well). I take that a bit further as well and I think that humans are so much more important than animals that a humans well-being whether mental or physical is more important than the physical well-being of thousands of animals. I wouldn't go so far as to say some crazy person should torture animals because it makes them feel better, maybe if there was no other way to make them feel better it would be alright.
I believe that it is fair game to do scientific testing and medical testing on animals regardless of the consequences to those animals. If testing an artificial sweetener on rats causes horrific painful tumors that ultimately kill the rats helps us understand possible effects on humans I say go nuts. Make sure you put enough rats through testing that you can come up to a scientifically valid result.
I believe that it is alright to mass produce animals to feed humans. I would disagree with doing it to such an extreme that the animals are in agony their whole lives to save rich westerners a few cents. However, if by doing that we are able to send food aid to poorer people, I think that is A-Ok.
I have never heard of people beating dogs before slaughtering them in order to increase the taste. However, I do know that when preparing a puppy it is quite common to begin by gutting the puppy while it is alive. They believe that it increases the flavor of the meat over killing it instantly then beginning preparation. It doesn't actually increase the flavor of the meat, but it is still a common practice. Beating the dog really makes absolutely no sense because you are just going to make the meat really tough and foul tasting. Kind of like how when you go dear hunting if you wound the animal in such a way that it is able to attempt to run away for a while before it succumbs to its wounds the meat comes out tough and foul tasting. Which is one of the reasons you want to hit a shot that will kill the animal as quick as possible.