Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The truth

Expand Messages
  • mklawt22
    Animals have rights except when MY ass is on the line Peta Stinks I understand what your point is with this statement, but let me say with two points why
    Message 1 of 3358 , Nov 3, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      "Animals have rights except when MY ass is on the
      line" Peta Stinks <br>I understand what your point is
      with this statement, but let me say with two points
      why you are wrong. Now I would accept medicine that
      WAS tested on animals, past tense, the same as I
      would accept medicine that WAS tested involunarily on
      humans, (less of a problem today, but there are
      medicines, that were tested on humans involuntarily). And
      you do the same probably without knowing it.<br><br>I
      will not support the use of animals in current
      research, but I have a better understanding of what can be
      done without animals in research then the typical
      person, simply because of my job. In fact the majority of
      (even cancer research) research does not involve
      animals in any way. In fact, in our lifetime, all
      research will probably be done on biological
      models.<br><br>Let me say this utilitarian argument that I have
      tried to clarify in different ways. <br>If by killing
      1000 humans we knew that cancer would be cured, should
      we kill them. I don't know the answer to this
      question, it seems easy but its not. By killing 1000 we
      save millions. A utilitarian would say yes, and I
      might say yes. Now let me say this. If an abolitionist,
      who was instrumental in saving many many blacks from
      slavery and torture, had cancer, should that abolitionist
      use medicine that was tested on blacks? NO! But there
      is an argument to be made that 1. By not taking the
      medicine, he might not change anything except that he dies.
      2. By taking the medicine the abolitionist could
      likely help save many many more blacks. Maybe from a
      utilitarian standpoint he should take the medicine! This is
      the question you are raising. I hope you understand
      this point to your "animals have rights except when MY
      ass is on the line" comment. Do you kill one person
      to save four?
    • chcoa
      Hi Colleen, ... rarely eat meat? I eat more chicken and turkey then red meat. Colleen ... Technically yes. I don t really care myself. You ll never catch me
      Message 3358 of 3358 , Apr 6 8:45 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Colleen,

        > Am I still basically considered a meat eater even though I
        rarely eat meat? I eat more chicken and turkey then red meat. Colleen
        >

        ---------
        Technically yes. I don't really care myself. You'll never catch me
        jumping you for eating, period! But since Praf's opinion is that
        anyone of us could in theory be a cow, or chx, or turk then yes, you
        are still a murdering flesh eater!
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.