Earthlings (An Animal Rights film) (Page 2 of 3)

Despite that, people still do it because it increases their perceived pleasure. Is it right?

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.

I didn't watch the video in the OP, it is probalby stupid.  I admit a lot of animal rights type videos are, which is why I didn't watch it actually.

As a utilitarian you are trying to maximize pleasure and reduce suffering, yes? 

Well scientifically speaking it is silly to claim that animals don't suffer on any meaningful level IMO, and I don't mean that in an offensive tone to you FYI.  Many of the animals we have been talking about have central nervous systems that are perfectly capable of feeling pain.  Many of these same animals biologists actually estimate can think at least as well as young children can (some dogs for example), although I am not sure if you want to try and make an argument that more intelligent beings feel physical pain more than unintelligent beings simply by virture of being more intelligent, since that is irrelevant to the question of whether or not they can feel physical pain.  But, just thought I would mention it, because you seem awfully caught up with mental suffering but I am not sure how you account for physical pain and suffering.

Because treating them decently may cause mental stress to a human.

@darin

Sarcasm?

So wait, are we still talking about food that is grown in the US now or not?  As in is this food being shipped to Africa from the US?  Need more info.

What would work best for the US may not work best for Africa and vice versa, so I suspect bringing up Africa might not be as relevant as you would like.  Furthermore, there are many green friendly movements that have radically different ideologies and some make a lot of sense, others not so much.  You can't generalize about them.

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.

I would think it would be obvious.

Also a baby is immeasurably more intelligent than the smartest of animals. A trained dog may be able to sit and stay on command, but that is just a conditioned response to a stimulus. The dog isn't actually thinking. The limits of a dogs intelligence are the ability to recognize other creatures, the ability to comprehend small numbers (I think 7 is the highest), the ability to socially rank a small number of creatures, and the ability to be conditioned to perform a number of activities. The limits of a child's intelligence are seemingly endless.

Apparently, though, you can't read.

I never "advocated" torturing animals. In fact, I myself don't find animal suffering enjoyable at all. However, my view tolerates the suffering of animals so long as it serves the (greater) benefit of human beings. I find it troubling that others (such as animal rights advocates) always want to push their ideologies onto others who don't share the same view. It's almost as bad as evangelical Christians.

To me, once you start "sympathizing" with animals, there's no end to your pursuit. Is the practice of domesticating animals even humane? What about caging birds, or taking other wild lives out of their natural habitats and confine them in a zoo? You all talk about suffering, but a life made into existence solely for the purpose of a superior species' exploitation - isn't such a life suffering to begin with? I am not willing to go into such way of thinking in the first place. I'd rather treat animals as nothing more than sophisticated crops or flowers, in that they're only as good as how we make use of them.

With regard to the two previous posts, they both touched on an interesting idea:

Any sort of mutual respect and, dare I say it, equality between humans and animals is indeed highly idealistic. As pointed out previously, our current global infrastructure depends on the subjugation of other species, so it's wholly impractical to try to reform it in any foreseeable length of time. However, as society develops and moves closer toward some sort of utopia (or at least a global society that has an overabundance of food), ethical considerations such as these will probably become increasingly important, as it becomes feasible to really work towards such goals. I don't think it would be entirely fruitless to start such initiatives even now, and the existence of animal rights in the first place would indicate that people generally agree with that. Indeed, it's unrealistic to have cows and cats frolicking around the streets of Manhattan any time soon, but at least we currently have the capacity to be somewhat benevolent tyrants.

As an end-note:

The material I've been exposed to would suggest otherwise. I don't really want to descend into the tedium of debate based on sources, though.

You certainly "believe" and "think" a whole lot about animals, but apparently have no reasoned arguments for believing any of it.  What are all these beliefs based on?

That is simply not true, considering modern biological literature and experiments on the subject.  (other people have gone towards this point too)  Similarly, a child's intelligence and potential to be a rational creature are extremely limited, because a human being needs at least a few years of development before their intelligence amounts to anything resembling a full grown human's.  This is also simple biology. 

PS:
Also, an *actual* nitpick here:  I am not sure if I would ever describe the intelligence of human beings as "seemingly endless".    But thats neither here nor there.