Controversial views

[Goosebump]

Yes, no farms

No animal testing, no selling pets.

This is a general principal. I'm not interested in ridiculously applying it to "all forms of life" such as fucking yeast or whatever. I'm talking about sentient animals, where practically possible.

So a cow and a chicken is "sentient" but a rat or a skunk? What about a mouse? Ban medical testing? This idea would end all milk and meat products in the world. I bet you understand how that would help the environment from the methain and land use. But you also see how it's a complete unicorn?

[Jackalope]

I think that despite receiving a great deal more exposure than the other three, Tinky Winky is in fact the least talented Teletubby.

[Goosebump]

I think that despite receiving a great deal more exposure than the other three, Tinky Winky is in fact the least talented Teletubby.

1000% agree, please remember me in the awakening.

[robvalue]

Yes, no farms

No animal testing, no selling pets.

This is a general principal. I'm not interested in ridiculously applying it to "all forms of life" such as fucking yeast or whatever. I'm talking about sentient animals, where practically possible.

So a cow and a chicken is "sentient" but a rat or a skunk? What about a mouse? Ban medical testing? This idea would end all milk and meat products in the world. I bet you understand how that would help the environment from the methain and land use. But you also see how it's a complete unicorn?

Yes, ban medical testing. It's been shown to be bullshit anyway. Results on animals are not reliable indicators of results on humans. They can even provide precisely the wrong result. We have much better and more reliable methods now. I believe animal testing has become a business, and it's effectiveness is no longer the reason it remains. Many big producers have moved away from using anything tested on animals after a certain fixed date, and it's going great for them. Others are just dragging their heels.

Yes, rats and skunks. I care about all living sentient things, as much as possible. Yes, I'd like to see all milk and meat products ended. There are realistic alternatives. I understand that this is a looooong way off right now. I can only do my bit to try and gently nudge attitudes, to try and hopefully work towards this in the distant future. I have no illusions that this will happen in my lifetime; however, there is a potential revolutionary product in development that could be a huge stepping stone.

I consider the relationship people have with meat to be somewhat similar to religion. They are raised to eat it, without it being explained, so that by the time they come to realise what it actually is, they've internally decided it's OK; not to mention semi-addicted to the taste of blood. A form of indoctrination. As for milk, I think 99% of people have no idea of the extreme cruelty involved in its production.

I also realise this is highly controversial and I don't expect many people to agree with me. But there you go, that is how I feel. I try and stay ahead of the morality curve, rather than accept what most people accept. If people don't speak up, nothing will change.

[Napoléon]

It's been shown to be bullshit anyway. Results on animals are not reliable indicators of results on humans. They can even provide precisely the wrong result.

Can you source this Rob?

Not meaning to be a dick by asking, but I'm genuinely curious. I can get that we're no doubt going to come across some things that might work wonderfully on animals but not on humans, but I'd of thought on the whole testing on animals first still gives a good indication of something. It's still a real science IMO, I'm sure there's new drugs, and cancer cures that are being tested on rats or other animals. Are you suggesting we scrap this completely?

What are these realistic alternatives you're talking about?

[Goosebump]

So a cow and a chicken is "sentient" but a rat or a skunk? What about a mouse? Ban medical testing? This idea would end all milk and meat products in the world. I bet you understand how that would help the environment from the methain and land use. But you also see how it's a complete unicorn?

...not to mention semi-addicted to the taste of blood.

I understand the threads purpose, and I understand everything you said but what I quoted above. You do realize when slaughtering an animal you DRAIN it of it's blood. The red juice is added: http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/...not-blood/

The blood isn't just thrown away either. They process it into allot of pet foods and yes some further livestock like pigs which are omnivorous. It's arguably more efficient then the native Americans that "used every part of the animal". Industry has taken that to new levels.

Finally not debating your point, just pointing out one part of it that is "mostly" incorrect.

[robvalue]

Nap: Sure, I'll have a look around. This is a controversial subject for which I expect a lot of misinformation to be around everywhere. Even some charities have spread it so they can continue supporting animal charities. I understand it's a bold statement, and I'll see what I can find by means of evidence. It's been a conclusion I've come to after a great deal of investigation and thought on the issue. I'm rather tired at the moment but I'll come back to this when I'm up to it. It will be interesting for me to see if I can compile some compelling sources.

Alternatives we have are things like growing live tissue to experiment on, even human tissue.

Gbump: OK thanks, I'll take a look at the link. I realize the blood is mostly drained, but I believe the residual amounts still have a lot to do with the flavour; the new synthesised meat replacements that are coming out are specifically looking to replicate heme so as to make the taste as close as possible to actual meat: article.

Bottom line is I value the lives and wellbeing of animals extremely highly. My general rule is I wouldn't do anything to an animal I that I wouldn't do to a human; within reason, and allowing for practicality. Farming humans for food, breeding them to sell, keeping them in a state of constant pregnancy to syphon off their milk, testing things on them against their will and owning them as property are all things I would consider wrong for humans. To me it's the same with animals. Again, people seem to be generally raised to view animals as quite a lot less important than humans. I hope it's an attitude that will change. A lot of people say "they're only [whatever]". I don't think that way.

And of course, you can never totally eradicate any problem. But doing a lot, or even a bit, is better than doing nothing because you can't solve it completely.

[robvalue]

My views on animals are not something I bring up a lot, as many people don't want to hear it or have a massive emotional reaction to it. It's not something I expect to change people's minds on unless they develop a genuine curiosity about it.

I don't mean to preach either. This is about morality, and I own all of this as my personal judgements. This happened to be the perfect thread to mention it. Otherwise, I generally only bring it up where relevant, or when someone comes to me with questions. I try to lead by example, but try not to force my views onto people.

[abaris]

My views on animals are not something I bring up a lot, as many people don't want to hear it or have a massive emotional reaction to it.

Fuck what people want to hear. And fuck their inability to have an emotinal reaction to it.

[Little lunch]

My controversial view is that the destruction and misery caused by professional sport, alcohol and gambling are on a par with religion.
In other words, the world would be equally as well off without these three as it would be without religion.