# Animal Rights Activist



## cat1974

Hi all,
I decided to do a post here as some issues have been popping up with a few of my threads recently.

I'll explain. I am an AR activist. I am vegan and go to protests about fur/vivisection etc. I try to lie my life without hurting other life, basically.

This is who I am and I make no apologies for it. I would stand up for your right not to be hurt, for the right of your children not to be hurt, and of course for the right of the animals in your care not to be hurt.

I find RFUK wonderful. I came to snakes (my only reps so far) by accident as there was one about to be killed. I couldn't let an animal be killed so I said I'd take him. I came here, bought books, consulted my vet and asked my local herp dude for advice. Adam is doing soooooooo well now and is a big beautiful boy and I am thrilled and thank RFUK (my first port of call always) for that help.

I am still AR though.

I recently had a rescue siamese kitten and needed advice on siamese cats. I have had cats all my life but the breeding changes them and I wanted her to be happy. So I consulted a siamese site and got the advice I needed.

I never hide who I am. Ever. I am AR and bloody proud of it. I don't expect others to be (though I'd love if they were obviously). My Boyfriend eats meat and my family bred dogs (till my granny died - it was her hobby).

I know the way the media works and that many will think I am about to dig up their grannies......

It is NOT the case. I respect life end of story and as far as non-human animals are concerned yes, I have a serious problem with putting a price on life, but that is an issue that I will take up with anyone at their discretion. Discuss it yes, when you want to bring it up.

However if and when I am attacked I will defend myself pretty much like little Eve, rattle my tail a bit then bite!

I am a very easygoing person and can discuss anything rationally, but if my personal care of my "babies" is called into question I will basically fight back with all I have. Rescue is the one aspect of my life that I am bloomin proud of and I know I do well.

We are not crazy you know! Ask me any question about being AR and I will give you a straight answer.

Thanks and once again, thanks for all the advice with the snakes!
Cat
PS pics: http://www.reptileforums.co.uk/snakes/245089-adam-eve-pics-last.html


----------



## cat1974

*pps: the siamese.....*

.... was a product of inbreeding and died. About 6 months old (by adult teeth) but the size of an 8 week old. I had her for 3 months after she was thrown to dogs in the freezing rain. My BF saved her (had 2 days off work with infected hand to prove it). She was as happy as possible with me but died of pleural pneumonia as the damage from the original cat flu (untreated) plus compromised immune system (due to inbreeding) meant that she could not be saved. She was obviously stunted (in size) and also retarded. She never acted like a cat. I may not know snakes but I DO know cats.... She died last Sunday waiting for the vet to put her to sleep, but it was fairly quick. She went straight to heaven if you believe in that. A little angel if ever I met one. Sorry for rambling. 
Cat


----------



## oakelm

Nice to hear you will take on the unwanteds but not sure why you need to justify yourself to us all. Most of us just take people as they come, a few are always up for an argument but thankfully they are easily silenced. Its nice to see an ARA that owns a snake most seem to be on the other side of the fence not really wanting us to keep them at all. Glad your snakes are getting on well, just a shame about the siamese, poor little thing.


----------



## SWE

*Congratulations on being AR Activist !*

If you ever need to borrow a spade or my bolt cutters to set thousands of mink free to murder all our indigenous wildlife please feel free to drop me a line!!!!
Being AR would be interesting to know what you feed your snake on ?


----------



## bosc888

I think it's fine if you are an ar activist as long as it's done in a reasonable way, I reckon the majority of people do not like to see animals suffering but do not take the extreme measures of what I'm sure is the minority of ar activists that you hear about in the media.
Where I live there is a problem with mink causing havoc to the local wildlife because they were liberated, there are problems nationally where people fishing have been attacked even though they put a huge amount of money & effort into looking after the environment & the fish that they catch.
Then we come to the animal test labs where people have had their lives threatened for trying to find a cure to dreadfull illnesses.
The case of the grandmother who was dug up is a digusting thing to do & unfortunately these are the incidents that go against you so you have a struggle on both sides, 1 with animal rights & 2 with seperating yourself from the lowlife that carry out these acts of violence & intimidation.
I wish you well in your cause & totally support your right to protest in a reasonable manor as long as you support my right to eat meat, take medication that has been tested on animals & carry on my hobby of fishing. It is for you to convince me otherwise & I can't see that happening but good luck & hope you have many happy years with your snake:2thumb:


----------



## Ssthisto

*If you keep companion animals, you're* *not an animal rights activist*. The animal rights agenda includes the phrase "better dead than in captivity." The animal rights side of things is NOT dedicated to captive animal welfare nor is it interested in the welfare of animals; the entirety of it is "humans must not interfere with animals in any way." If that means _euthanising_ thousands of healthy adoptable animals that could have been provided with good loving lifetime homes, so be it.

*If you care about the welfare of animals in captivity, you're a welfarist*. You want better conditions for what is in captivity, you don't want what's in captivity to be hurt or killed, you just want to live your life and let them live theirs in the best possible conditions.
*If you think they're better off dead than in captivity, you're a rightsist.* You want animals to be eliminated from captivity entirely, you think captive animals should die out and you're willing to actively kill them - or support killing them - to remove them from human influence.

From what you've described, you're an animal WELFARE activist - same as most of us - who happens to be vegan and who objects to fur, vivisection and so forth. Hell, I object to vivisection although I also see how it CAN be of use to science, and I only approve of fur if the person using it is going to eat the animal it came off of too. I might not be a vegan or vegetarian; this is in part for health reasons (I don't do well on a diet high in grains/starches/sugars). 

Now, if I've read you wrong and you really do support the animal rights agenda... you really do think all my animals are better off dead or pushed out of my home to fend for themselves just to get out from under the tyranny of human rule (try that with my cats and you'll see they'll be straight back in the cat flap) ... then fair enough, I can see how friction might have occurred on this and other posts!


----------



## butterfingersbimbo

I would say that I'm a welfarist in that case : victory:


----------



## 9Red

Hi Cat,

I'm not looking for an argument at all (not my style) but am interested to know how you feel about the use of animals in the development of veterinary pharmacueticals? 

I have studied laboratory animal management and legislation as part of my first degree and I can understand why some activists claim that animals are not appropriate for the development of some human drugs as our physiologies are not totally compatable, but some groups seem to 'gloss over' the fact that lab animals are also used in much the same way for veterinary drug developments. 

As you said you took in a rescued kitten who unfortunately did not survive, I'm assuming s/he underwent veterinary treatment using a variety of drugs?

: victory:


----------



## spend_day

i think as long as your not a "reptiles should be left in the wild even the captive bred ones should be released because there wild, i mean look how wild they are thats where the belong the wild. and nope i dont have any issue what so ever with people keeping wild caugh fish or small birds" AR activist your welcome to be here.


----------



## arthur cooke

As a person who fought tooth and claw to stop ARs from stopping us from keeping reptiles I was relieved to see that you aren't really AR.

Vivisection is a much abused word,it's no longer safe to use that word, animals in research aren't cut to pieces nowadays, much research is genetic, using animals that have been genetically altered to resemble humans.

If research is done to make human life better, whether or not they cut the animal, then I'm all for it. Because the result can be cures for some of the diseases that afflict us. Imagine the millions that would be saved if it led to a cure for AIDS. So I'm in full support for research using animals.

The anti fur lobby have done a great deal of damage to our country side by releasing mink, many of their videos are put up jobs,this is also the case with the anti vivisectionists.

Hopefully now those terrorists from SHAC have been jailed we'll see and end to some of this nonsense.
cheers arthur


----------



## ownedbyroxy

arthur cooke said:


> As a person who fought tooth and claw to stop ARs from stopping us from keeping reptiles I was relieved to see that you aren't really AR.
> 
> Vivisection is a much abused word,it's no longer safe to use that word, animals in research aren't cut to pieces nowadays, much research is genetic, using animals that have been genetically altered to resemble humans.
> 
> If research is done to make human life better, whether or not they cut the animal, then I'm all for it. Because the result can be cures for some of the diseases that afflict us. Imagine the millions that would be saved if it led to a cure for AIDS. So I'm in full support for research using animals.
> 
> The anti fur lobby have done a great deal of damage to our country side by releasing mink, many of their videos are put up jobs,this is also the case with the anti vivisectionists.
> 
> Hopefully now those terrorists from SHAC have been jailed we'll see and end to some of this nonsense.
> cheers arthur


 
VERY WELL SAID!!! everything said was spot on : victory:


----------



## essexchondro

> Hi all,
> I decided to do a post here as some issues have been popping up with a few of my threads recently.
> 
> I'll explain. I am an AR activist. I am vegan and go to protests about fur/vivisection etc. I try to lie my life without hurting other life, basically.
> 
> This is who I am and I make no apologies for it. I would stand up for your right not to be hurt, for the right of your children not to be hurt, and of course for the right of the animals in your care not to be hurt.
> 
> I find RFUK wonderful. I came to snakes (my only reps so far) by accident as there was one about to be killed. I couldn't let an animal be killed so I said I'd take him. I came here, bought books, consulted my vet and asked my local herp dude for advice. Adam is doing soooooooo well now and is a big beautiful boy and I am thrilled and thank RFUK (my first port of call always) for that help.
> 
> I am still AR though.
> 
> I recently had a rescue siamese kitten and needed advice on siamese cats. I have had cats all my life but the breeding changes them and I wanted her to be happy. So I consulted a siamese site and got the advice I needed.
> 
> I never hide who I am. Ever. I am AR and bloody proud of it. I don't expect others to be (though I'd love if they were obviously). My Boyfriend eats meat and my family bred dogs (till my granny died - it was her hobby).
> 
> I know the way the media works and that many will think I am about to dig up their grannies......
> 
> It is NOT the case. I respect life end of story and as far as non-human animals are concerned yes, I have a serious problem with putting a price on life, but that is an issue that I will take up with anyone at their discretion. Discuss it yes, when you want to bring it up.
> 
> However if and when I am attacked I will defend myself pretty much like little Eve, rattle my tail a bit then bite!
> 
> I am a very easygoing person and can discuss anything rationally, but if my personal care of my "babies" is called into question I will basically fight back with all I have. Rescue is the one aspect of my life that I am bloomin proud of and I know I do well.
> 
> We are not crazy you know! Ask me any question about being AR and I will give you a straight answer.
> 
> Thanks and once again, thanks for all the advice with the snakes!
> Cat
> PS pics: Adam and Eve - PICS AT LAST!!!!


Then you aren't an animal rights activist, IMO. Terrorists tend not to be easygoing and rational. 
http://www.reptileforums.co.uk/snakes/245089-adam-eve-pics-last.html


----------



## Meko

cat1974 said:


> Hi all,
> I decided to do a post here as some issues have been popping up with a few of my threads recently.
> 
> I'll explain. I am an AR activist. I am vegan and go to protests about fur/vivisection etc. I try to lie my life without hurting other life, basically.
> 
> This is who I am and I make no apologies for it. I would stand up for your right not to be hurt, for the right of your children not to be hurt, and of course for the right of the animals in your care not to be hurt.
> 
> I find RFUK wonderful. I came to snakes (my only reps so far) by accident as there was one about to be killed. I couldn't let an animal be killed so I said I'd take him. I came here, bought books, consulted my vet and asked my local herp dude for advice. Adam is doing soooooooo well now and is a big beautiful boy and I am thrilled and thank RFUK (my first port of call always) for that help.
> 
> I am still AR though.
> 
> I recently had a rescue siamese kitten and needed advice on siamese cats. I have had cats all my life but the breeding changes them and I wanted her to be happy. So I consulted a siamese site and got the advice I needed.
> 
> I never hide who I am. Ever. I am AR and bloody proud of it. I don't expect others to be (though I'd love if they were obviously). My Boyfriend eats meat and my family bred dogs (till my granny died - it was her hobby).
> 
> I know the way the media works and that many will think I am about to dig up their grannies......
> 
> It is NOT the case. I respect life end of story and as far as non-human animals are concerned yes, I have a serious problem with putting a price on life, but that is an issue that I will take up with anyone at their discretion. Discuss it yes, when you want to bring it up.
> 
> However if and when I am attacked I will defend myself pretty much like little Eve, rattle my tail a bit then bite!
> 
> *I am a very easygoing person and can discuss anything rationally, but if my personal care of my "babies" is called into question I will basically fight back with all I have*. Rescue is the one aspect of my life that I am bloomin proud of and I know I do well.
> 
> We are not crazy you know! Ask me any question about being AR and I will give you a straight answer.
> 
> Thanks and once again, thanks for all the advice with the snakes!
> Cat
> PS pics: http://www.reptileforums.co.uk/snakes/245089-adam-eve-pics-last.html


 
make your mind up.. if you were easy going wouldn't you discuss it rationally if the personal care of your 'babies' was called into question


----------



## Barney_M

so your an animals right activist? what do you feed your snakes? mice that were gased or trown in a freezer or kncoked on the head or meat from a cow or something that was taken through a slaughter house?


----------



## dragonbreeder

having read the first post and not seing what provoked it and presuming it was just a random post.
i have come to the conclusion that the OP thought that it would be a touchy subject for a good "debate" which, due to the current state of our hobby with so many against it, has instead turned into an argument.
or, at least, having only read the first and last post
will turn into an argument very soon.

Erik


----------



## Alex88

i can see this getting way out of hand, its good to see people not wishing to hurt animals, but IMO if your keeping retiles which do happen to be carnivors then your a hippocrate because something has had to suffer for the nutrition and welfair of the reptile. Just because you didnt do the killing doesnt mean it never happened, your like most other people. Out of site and out of mind. No offence, i wouldnt come here claiming your a AR Activist because you might feel you are but truely your not, your someone who cares and loves animals and i think everyone one here would possibly agree that they love theirs too. But what your claiming is that your an AR activest then you shouldnt keep ANY animals, thats all i can be bothered to say, good luck


----------



## Skyespirit86

I don't think it's wrong of you to come on here apparently unnecessarily to justify yourself. Many people do have negative view of animal rights activists and I realise you are probably a sensitive person like me, who doesn't feel particularly confident about being disliked or disagreed with, even if you really do stand by what you're saying... and you put yourself up in the line of fire so to speak with your views...it's hard. I suppose I started off slightly activist in my views but now I tend to be in the half way house on most subjects after researching them (not saying you haven't). Maybe I'm more 'animal welfare' now rather than activist. I do my best but within logical, achievable means that at least make some difference, even if they're not the 'ideal' which can be literally impossible to successfully achieve, and in the meantime you're working yourself into such an emotional draining state, getting angry, and hurt.

Take animal testing...I don't think small tests (which make up the majority of tests done)are terrible, eg diet manipulation and stuff like that. Things like vivisection and invasive procedures etc are very hard for me to take in or justify at all, however I don't think people enjoy doing them. There are laws in place, and people exposed doing terrible things are usually breaking the law. However it is true that not all animal tests can be replaced by test-tube methods, and without sometests really important medicines and advances wouldn't have been made. If it really was a case of saving my mum from cancer or a rabbit say, going through some pain...terrible or not...I know which I'd pick. And it's not because i think it's ok to hurt the rabbit.

Anyway, whether your views are the same as mine is nt important. I really do understand your respect for life. I hate knowing something has died, or hurting anything- it hurts me, REALLY bad. I respect each animal as an individual with a life just like mine and it's so hard...but sometimes I just have to let it go.

I am quite ante-dairy, and at the least don't have fresh milk. I wish it wasn't in other foods because it's extremely hard to eliminate. I have been on all the websites...and have got very frustrated over the years when people won't respect a dead animal as having been a real life, or that dairy could be cruel...etc etc. 

I think where some activists go wrong is like I said, they shoot for the ideal, instead of what is really achieveable, and if you try and be logical you are seen as not really caring or being weak. There are many different aspects to making changes in a society and you must think about how REAL people, whether you like them or not, will be thinking and responding and be clever so you can make SOME difference, and not just piss them off and make none. Over time these small changes can become big ones. 

Anyway...there's lots I could say but I don't want to go on anymore...

Good luck.


----------



## Skyespirit86

dragonbreeder said:


> having read the first post and not seing what provoked it and presuming it was just a random post.
> i have come to the conclusion that the OP thought that it would be a touchy subject for a good "debate" which, due to the current state of our hobby with so many against it, has instead turned into an argument.
> or, at least, having only read the first and last post
> will turn into an argument very soon.
> 
> Erik


I don't. 

They said they love the forum and they keep a snake?? So they're ante-themselves? The person sounds quite genuine, and a caring type of person who wants to tell people how they feel and be accepted for it, or perhaps find someone who knows what they're trying to say and appreciates it properly for once. I don't find it easy being knowledgeable or caring about certain subjects...

I think you are reacting as though it is touchy...but they weren't treating it like that. I don't see how this thread is really going to go out of hand either...unless you make it. ?????


----------



## Skyespirit86

essexchondro said:


> Then you aren't an animal rights activist, IMO. Terrorists tend not to be easygoing and rational.


Animal rights activist is just a way to describe someone who is standing up for their animal-rights beliefs. They don't have to be nuts. It is only the ones who make the news and stuff which you are thinking of and it's very judgmental of you. I know some can be extreme or offensive with the way they conduct themselves even in a debate, but if you're just the kind who likes to hand out leaflets or make peaceful protests at the worst, you're hardely akin to a terrorist. Sometimes things are wrong, and it would be the right thing to stand up for it...


----------



## ratboy

Skyespirit86 said:


> Animal rights activist is just a way to describe someone who is standing up for their animal-rights beliefs.


How many Animal Rights activists have you actually met ? What you are describing is an Animal Rights campaigner... there is a big difference.


----------



## dragonbreeder

Skyespirit86 said:


> I don't.
> 
> They said they love the forum and they keep a snake?? So they're ante-themselves? The person sounds quite genuine, and a caring type of person who wants to tell people how they feel and be accepted for it, or perhaps find someone who knows what they're trying to say and appreciates it properly for once. I don't find it easy being knowledgeable or caring about certain subjects...
> 
> I think you are reacting as though it is touchy...but they weren't treating it like that. I don't see how this thread is really going to go out of hand either...unless you make it. ?????



this is RFUK and at least 1 person disagrees with the OP of course its eventually going to get out of hand.
every thread like this does.


----------



## HABU

i'm an animal... we're all animals...

... read into that all you will.

those 'over the top' radicals aren't animal rights advocates... they are mental people that found a cause to latch onto...


----------



## Gem

HABU said:


> i'm an animal... we're all animals...
> 
> ... read into that all you will.
> 
> those 'over the top' radicals aren't animal rights advocates... they are mental people that found a cause to latch onto...


 
Beautiful :no1:


----------



## rakpeterson

Skyespirit86 said:


> Animal rights activist is just a way to describe someone who is standing up for their animal-rights beliefs. They don't have to be nuts. It is only the ones who make the news and stuff which you are thinking of and it's very judgmental of you. I know some can be extreme or offensive with the way they conduct themselves even in a debate, but if you're just the kind who likes to hand out leaflets or make peaceful protests at the worst, you're hardely akin to a terrorist. Sometimes things are wrong, and it would be the right thing to stand up for it...


Thing is, the way i understand the term AR activist, and i think its been mentioned already......

A real AR activist does not believe in keeping animals captive. A real activist would not keep pets, and would view them as wild animals that should remain wild.

I think the OP has muddled things up a little and id say she is more interested in the welfare of both captive and wild animals.

Personally i dislike all real AR activists, but I obviously believe in rights for animals captive and wild. I keep dogs rodents and reps in captivity, and I would also stand up for their rights in peaceful protest if necessary etc.


----------



## julieann

hi ive just read this thread and im at a lost why if you are a easy goin person that you need to start a thread which is goin to create such a stir in people on here, also why do we need to know ? that you are a AR, i also have lots of pets 2 dog 2cats 1 hamster 11 rats 3 kitten all were rescues because i cant see animals suffer, i own 2 geckos ts and snakes which is why im a member on here. im a live and let live person everyone has there strong beliefs on something but unless it is brought up in spoken conversation i see no reason to be told, so dont believe you are as easy goin as you claim, i dont expect a pat on the back for what i have rescue they to me are just 1 more pet to love and be cared for. me and my OH dont see why you started this thread to begin with.


----------



## SWE

*AT*

All I can think is that the original post must ave been some sort of wind up ...


----------



## wildlifewarrior

I just dont understand how you can disagree with buying animals and having them for enjoyment. I mean your feeding a animal that needs to eat rodents...they have been killed and by you keeping and feeding them to the snake your buying more and more and therefore contributing to more of them being killed just like most of us that buy our rodents.

I could understand if you rescued a iggy or a hermans tort or even a stick insect...i mean there eatting plant matter. but you disagree with animals being killed and such yet your adding to some animals being killed.


----------



## Meko

dragonbreeder said:


> this is RFUK and at least 1 person disagrees with the OP of course its eventually going to get out of hand.
> every thread like this does.


 
isn't it ironic..
nobody was arguing until you said people would start arguing and now they're arguing about if people are going to argue or not.

by your reckoning everybody should agree with the OP's of any thread or it'll get get out of hand, so why should there be an option to reply? why not just a button that automatically posts _'hurrah, i agree, jolly good thread'_


----------



## dragonbreeder

Meko said:


> isn't it ironic..
> nobody was arguing until you said people would start arguing and now they're arguing about if people are going to argue or not.
> 
> by your reckoning everybody should agree with the OP's of any thread or it'll get get out of hand, so why should there be an option to reply? why not just a button that automatically posts _'hurrah, i agree, jolly good thread'_



its not as though i forced people to argue Meko is it? People have the option to ignore me, or read what i write and respond.
a vast amount of threads on here end in arguments - especially ones such as this.
but this forum is full of people who shall get titchy and argumentative for nothing.
this forum is renowned for being the reptile forum of fighting.


----------



## Meko

its probably because it allows more freedom of speech than others so people can express their thoughts.
People will always have differing opinions on subjects and sometimes it'll get heated. It happens everywhere, work, the pub, the internet; its healthy to have a heated debate / argument as long as it doesn't go too far.


----------



## vickylolage

I couldnt be arsed to read all this thread but I decided to have my 2 pence worth.

I think its fine being an ARA so long as it doesnt go OTT as with any protesting. Personally I am against animal testing for things such as cosmetics etc. As for testing for medical purposes I think products that people use should be tested and perfected on people. Bit cruel to make an animal suffer for something we cant fathom out. If a cure is needed for a disease for certain types of animals then test on those animals... if that makes sense? Like benefit a species by using the species sort of thing. HUMANELY of course.

I always see animal rights campaigners in Newcastle and some of the pictures from I think its places like "Huntingtons Life Sciences" (not sure if that name is right) are horrific and always make me cry/sign my name/donate. Its awful.

As for "whats does the OP feed her snake their carnivores its hypocritical" etc. I think everyone has to accept that life is a food chain. So long as the meat/mouse/rat or whatever that is used is killed humanely and with minimal amounts of pain etc I dont see a problem. Im sure a lot of people who care for animals would agree.

No doubt someone will pick apart what Ive just said lol


----------



## essexchondro

> Animal rights activist is just a way to describe someone who is standing up for their animal-rights beliefs. They don't have to be nuts. It is only the ones who make the news and stuff which you are thinking of and it's very judgmental of you. I know some can be extreme or offensive with the way they conduct themselves even in a debate, but if you're just the kind who likes to hand out leaflets or make peaceful protests at the worst, you're hardely akin to a terrorist. Sometimes things are wrong, and it would be the right thing to stand up for it...


That's not the case. An animal rights activist is a specific type of person with a specific and well defined agenda. Animal rights activists, by definition, have what wider society would consider to be an extreme agenda, and they are prepared to enter into direct and forceful action to meet that agenda (i.e what wider societry would call terrorism). Animal rights activists are not peaceful protesters and are not prepared to enter into rational debate or compromises and the term is only used to describe "someone who is standing up for their animal-rights beliefs" if its used incorrectly. Put simply, what you're describing isn't an animal rights activist.


----------



## oakelm

I think you have all scared them off, they havent replied to a post at all just done the original opening post.


----------



## arthur cooke

The OP declared that they are an AR activist, What does that mean?
They say they want to debate, that'll be a first, I've asked Andy Tyler of Animal Aid for a debate many times and he never has. They, AR, never debate with the likes of us animal keepers. They see the animals we keep as prisoners, slaves and us as prison guards in an animal holocaust. So to them a debate is out of the question, how can you debate with Nazi prison guards.

All of their campaigns are full of lies, half truths, bad science and outright deceptions.

It shouldn't be forgotten that all of these different groups work together, the RSPCA,Animal Aid, PeTA, League against Cruel Sports,all the vivisectionist groups, there is a very large list of pro AR groups.

They produce some very emotive fake videos, when you see one or two of the videos of the way the Chinese produce fur it looks disgusting, until you realise that to produce these videos they, AR, perpetrated the animal abuse themselves in order to produce the video, then you can see the lengths they are prepared to go to raise money for their cause.

When it comes to us reptile keepers they said to parliament that our reptiles only ever lived for a year in captivity and were believed. They said that the skill needed to keep our animals were to great for us to be able to keep them.That if their were children in your house you were exposing them to deadly salmonella and this was child abuse.

Also, if you go onto one or two of their sites you will find that many of them appear to have pets, of course these pets are rescues and therefore not against their AR credentials because animals have been taken away from abusers. Oh and they started a myth by saying that people who abused animals were also likely to abuse their partners and children, as they see the keeping of any animal as abuse what are they really saying!

My take on this is that we as people have a responsibility to treat animals that we keep well, to give them a decent, happy life. We have a responsibility to animals, they have no rights. 
cheers arthur


----------



## Tehanu

Well said Arthur, that's the AR I'm thinking of.

I think essentially the OP labelled herself as something she actually isn't and doesn't quite realise the clear implications.

She's more or less no different to the average person on here. She just got caught up in posturing and thinking she was better and that the appropriate name for that was AR.

Whoops!


----------



## arthur cooke

Thanks Saedcantas, I think that's proberbly right and perhaps the OP could come and debate.
I hope that it isn't AR hitting and running, trying to disrupt.That has been one of their aims in the past.
cheers arthur


----------



## rakpeterson

The fact that the OP actually keeps captive animals suggests that they are not AR at all, but are infact very passionate about the right of animals wether captive or wild.

Big differance between animal rights and animal welfare.


----------



## Gaboon

Animal rights activists are blooming mental! I mean we all care for the welfare of all animals be it a pet, domestic food source, or the best kind, wild. But raging war on anyone who does not agree with your extremist views is just terrorism. A better label for any animal right activist group would be, susceptible disillusioned angry animal loving hippies! S.D.A.A.L.H :lol2:.

I mean to cause no offence to the OP but I do have very strong views against extreme groups that justify there militarism views and terrorist acts by exploiting fellow sentient beings as a 'worthy cause'. A very tried, tested and failed tactic for attempting to gain support when in fact your and your group is dis-functional.

My feelings.


----------



## Tristan

essexchondro said:


> *That's not the case. An animal rights activist is a specific type of person with a specific and well defined agenda*. Animal rights activists, by definition, have what wider society would consider to be an extreme agenda, and they are prepared to enter into direct and forceful action to meet that agenda (i.e what wider societry would call terrorism). Animal rights activists are not peaceful protesters and are not prepared to enter into rational debate or compromises and the term is only used to describe "someone who is standing up for their animal-rights beliefs" if its used incorrectly. Put simply, what you're describing isn't an animal rights activist.


I used to be part of an "animal rights group" and did the protests, even part of a break-in at one point, but then saw the errors of our way and stopped. It's just passion. That surely would define me as one back then I suppose? I am strongly against anything that is cruel to animals, but unlike most of those types I keep animals by choice, but a lot of people I know who were part of more extreme groups are very tame and are quite civilised. You're putting all of them in the same sack. I admit there are some nutjobs out there but honestly most of them just generally care about the welfare of animals in a dignified way. Don't focus so much on the media.

If I've missed the point my apologises. I am a lazy bastard who only read the first few posts and in-betweens.


----------



## essexchondro

> I used to be part of an "animal rights group" and did the protests, even part of a break-in at one point, but then saw the errors of our way and stopped. That surely would define me as one then? I am strongly against anything that is cruel to animals, but unlike most of those types I keep animals by choice, but a lot of people I know who were part of that group are very tame and are very civilised. You're putting all of them in the same sack. I admit there are some nutjobs out there but honestly most of them just generally care about the welfare of animals in a dignified way. Don't focus so much on the media.


Yes I think it probably would. Maybe you have now seen the error of your ways but that does not erase the fact that you did engaged in criminal activity which, at least in part, was intended to terrorise and intimidate those that didn't agree with your point of view and agenda (pretty much the dictionary definition of terrorism!) rather than debate things rationally and work within the law...much like we'd expect a "tame and very civilised" person to...

I'm sure that nice people do get involved in bad things...but that doesn't make the bad things they do any less bad. You've only got to look at Nazi Germany to realise that.


----------



## bosc888

vickylolage said:


> Personally I am against animal testing for things such as cosmetics etc. As for testing for medical purposes I think products that people use should be tested and perfected on people. Bit cruel to make an animal suffer for something we cant fathom out. If a cure is needed for a disease for certain types of animals then test on those animals... if that makes sense? Like benefit a species by using the species sort of thing. HUMANELY of course.
> 
> No doubt someone will pick apart what Ive just said lol


what a ridiculous thing to say, from a personal point of view if there wasn't testing of drugs my mother would not have beaten cancer 25 years ago & again 2 years ago.
testing on humans does occur once it is proven to be safe for them by testing on animals in the first place, not being funny but I would put more importance on human life than animal life.
Experience counts for a lot in life & one day I hope you realise that what you believe now is a bit short sighted.


----------



## cat1974

*Wow...*

There is a hell of a lot to respond to here! It'd probably take me a year and to be honest I haven't (yet) read all the pages!

It's late and I can't stay up all night so for now at least I'll be brief....

I am AR and proud. I am an activist. I do have companion animals (I personally prefer the term animal companions but that is just semantics!). Incidentally every AR activist I have ever met has recued animals so I'm really not sure where the person who posted that is getting their info....

I also appreciate all the advice I get from RFUK but if I am not welcome by any of you feel free to cancel my membership via a mod. I'm sure I will find an alternative site.

I have also never done anything illegal (although have been wrongly accused of it).

I feed my snakes on rats although I hate every second of it and have searched alternatatives to killing them for it (such as breeeding and letting them die of old age, but at the moment that is not possible for me to do and considering the size of the colony I'd have to keep even for 2 snakes I doubt it ever will be). I also feed my 7 cats and 2 dogs meat products. This actually bothers me less as they eat by-products while the snakes don't, and is probably why I am the activist people turn to when a snake turns up needing a home!

I do think that snakes would be better off in the wild. As would all other undomesticated animals. I also realise that the world is not like that and that rescued animals need looking after be they wild or domestic.

I am in no way claiming to be perfect or trying to Lord it over anyone here. As I said I appreciate all the help I have had and I would have been lost without RFUK.

However I DO support AR 100%. I am anti-hunting, anti-fishing, anti-vivisection, anti-meat, anti-fur, you name it!

I know the majority here would be pro many of these issues and I knew that when I joined. All my family (bar one cousin) eat meat, most would support the rest (apart from fox-hunting I think, but I'd have to canvass them. I know my fave uncle hates the fox hunters but that's 'cos they had a fight with him on his cycling race as much as for the foxes lol) and that does not mean I hate them or won't talk to/visit them. Most of my friends fall into the same boat.

All I ask is that for once, can we not bloody well focus on what we have in common, rather than what separates us???? In this case a genuine love for and admiration of snakes, and a common desire for everyone's snakes to be healthy and happy. (My lack of advice given in forums is not unwillingness to help others, but I'd rather not advise badly as I'm not exactly an expert here!)

I jut think the world would be a better place if we could strive towards finding a common ground rather that seeking out ways to irritate each other.

This does not mean I am a welfarist (as I am not) it just means that I am extending an invitation to anyone who hates "me and my ilk" (lol) to actually take a moment to realise what I am about.

Cat
PS: I never ever dug up a grave! Only graves I dig are for deceased rescued animals. I was actually personally accused (not by anyone official mind) of digging up that Granny (despite living in a different country, being 5 ft nothing and having a bad back and a dodgy right wrist!) which kinda goes to show the level of prejudice that exists......

PPS: I can try to get back to every post here but as I said it'd probably take me a year! Sorry!


----------



## cat1974

*Oaklem*



oakelm said:


> Nice to hear you will take on the unwanteds but not sure why you need to justify yourself to us all. Most of us just take people as they come, a few are always up for an argument but thankfully they are easily silenced. Its nice to see an ARA that owns a snake most seem to be on the other side of the fence not really wanting us to keep them at all. Glad your snakes are getting on well, just a shame about the siamese, poor little thing.


Thanks by the way! For your lovely reply. Seems I have started an argument when I wanted to do the opposite. Ah well! Poor little Jenny is at rest now and I have space for another little needy mite, be they mammal or reptile!
Take good care,
Cat


----------



## Incubuss

Not read this thread through, but your first post is confusing. You keep captive animals, yet you're and activist? You keep a snake that eats mice, yet no animal should be killed by a human? Thats just for starters.


----------



## cat1974

*read then*

perhaps read the thread then or at least my original and last posts..... No wonder you are confused if you haven't read any of it!
Cat


----------



## rakpeterson

I always thought an actual AR activist was opposed to keeping animals in captivity. ie it is not our right to keep an animal in captivity for ant reason including our pleasure.

So it was my understanding that, seeing as you have atm at least two snakes, which I know are rescues but still captive, that you would actually be a welfarist

I know wikipedia is not the best source of info, but in this case it is just echoing many of the sites iv just looked at regarding what ar campaigners believe.

_*Animal rights*, also known as *animal liberation*, is the idea that the most basic interests of animals should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of human beings.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights#cite_note-EB3-0 Animal rights advocates approach the issue from different philosophical positions, but they agree that *animals should no longer be regarded as property, or used as food, clothing, research subjects, or entertainment*, but should instead be viewed as legal persons and members of the moral community_

Going by that definition you are not ''100% AR'' as you put it. You use animals for food (the snakes), do you wear leather shoes??, and keeping them in captivity is only for our entertainment.

And please dont think im being bitchy here, dont take any of it that way. I have nothing against you personally, you can believe and standup for what you believe.


----------



## Esarosa

Ssthisto said:


> *If you keep companion animals, you're* *not an animal rights activist*. The animal rights agenda includes the phrase "better dead than in captivity." The animal rights side of things is NOT dedicated to captive animal welfare nor is it interested in the welfare of animals; the entirety of it is "humans must not interfere with animals in any way." If that means _euthanising_ thousands of healthy adoptable animals that could have been provided with good loving lifetime homes, so be it.
> 
> *If you care about the welfare of animals in captivity, you're a welfarist*. You want better conditions for what is in captivity, you don't want what's in captivity to be hurt or killed, you just want to live your life and let them live theirs in the best possible conditions.
> *If you think they're better off dead than in captivity, you're a rightsist.* You want animals to be eliminated from captivity entirely, you think captive animals should die out and you're willing to actively kill them - or support killing them - to remove them from human influence.
> 
> From what you've described, you're an animal WELFARE activist - same as most of us - who happens to be vegan and who objects to fur, vivisection and so forth. Hell, I object to vivisection although I also see how it CAN be of use to science, and I only approve of fur if the person using it is going to eat the animal it came off of too. I might not be a vegan or vegetarian; this is in part for health reasons (I don't do well on a diet high in grains/starches/sugars).
> 
> Now, if I've read you wrong and you really do support the animal rights agenda... you really do think all my animals are better off dead or pushed out of my home to fend for themselves just to get out from under the tyranny of human rule (try that with my cats and you'll see they'll be straight back in the cat flap) ... then fair enough, I can see how friction might have occurred on this and other posts!



Cat I have to agree with the above. Whether you 'rescued' the animals or went out and bought them you are keeping them as pets. Animal Rights activists don't believe in that. They think they're better off dead than alive.. That's why two members of peta went around a state in America adopting perfectly healthy dogs to kill them and dump them in bins...because they were better off dead than as a pet. That's how they saw it.

For years as a kid i thought I was an animal rights activist. I wouldn't eat meat, wouldn't wear fur or leather etc etc. It wasn't until I started to 'google' that I came across some seriously disturbing :censor: that I had to realise and come to the conclusion that I wasn't an ARactivist. I was an animal lover who believed that those animals in captivity should have the best home and suitable environment to meet their needs.

A lot of the people on here will share the same views as you, ie no animal testing, anti-fur etc. But that doesn't make them animal rights activists. It makes them, as ssthisto said Welfareists.

I think I can safely say the majority of us here have the animals best interests at heart and care deeply about our 'companions'. But there is a huge difference between that and being an animal rights activist.

My brother recently stopped eating meat as he heard a song by a band he likes about an animal rights activist. (It's called 'Free..and then name I can't remember :lol2: but basically an animal rights terrorist who is in jail.) He now keeps saying he's an animal rights activist...but he keeps fish as pets for his little un and is debating a dog. He too couldn't grasp the concept of ...no you're not animal rights you're for animal welfare..there IS a difference.


----------



## Lynne

i have asked this question often, as i read people saying 'snakes are wild'. well the snakes we keep arent. most were bred in captivity and have never had to search or wait for their own food. so they wouldnt survive well in the wild would they. specially in the weather we get!!! 
i love animals, always have done, but i eat meat, i love fry ups, i wear leather shoes, i have leather bags, i wouldnt wear fur, but i have done in the past. but i buy meat and poultry and eggs that have been treated humanely and allowed to roam free at least part of the day.
i believe that medicines etc meant for humans should be tested on humans, but i also beleive that the dogs, monkeys etc that these people release, are not being treated humanely even by them. they would be more stressed being released from these places, would have problems settling into any home without serious and professional help. so releasing them the ways they do just doesnt help the animals. 
sorry am not very good at putting what i feel into words.


----------



## cat1974

*Rakpeterson and katie*

Hi glad to catch you as it's so hard to go back over 5 pages and reply to all!

First off I NEED to distance myself from PETA. I have and will never have anything to do with them. They are NOT respected by the general AR movement. As such I cannot comment on their dealings except to say that they DO KILL ANIMALS FOR NO GOOD REASON. I am NOT a PETA fan!

AR people do not buy animals or eat animal products or wear them. They do give homes to needy animals (the homeless, the dumped, those rescued from the likes of PETA shelters and pounds). So most have animals (unless landlords forbid it etc). I have my own house so can do what I can. So I do what I can and currently have 7 cats 2 dogs and 2 snakes. My limit is 2 for dogs as I can't walk more than that physically. * cats as that's all the room I have really. Snakes I'm not sure yet as I'm sure Eve wouldn't mind a little corn friend but I'd take advice first (from here).

So no I don't wear leather. Or silk or wool in fact! But I most certainly do give homes to needy animals. I'd do it for kids too if I was let! I don't place animals above humans. I recognise pain and try to stop it when and where I can.

NO real AR person would prefer an animal to die than find the right home I assure you. AR means no-kill, unlike PETA. (UNless they are suffering and cannot be cured obviously)

Thanks guys for your reasonable questions!
Cat


----------



## Lynne

bosc888 said:


> what a ridiculous thing to say, from a personal point of view if there wasn't testing of drugs my mother would not have beaten cancer 25 years ago & again 2 years ago.
> testing on humans does occur once it is proven to be safe for them by testing on animals in the first place, not being funny but I would put more importance on human life than animal life.
> Experience counts for a lot in life & one day I hope you realise that what you believe now is a bit short sighted.


sorry to hear about your mum, and yes there are always going to be things that have to be tested on animals, but this should be done only if the animals bodies work similarly to humans. and i really dont agree with squirting hairspray in a rabbits eyes. or making dogs smoke 40 **** a day.
however the sooner these people realise they wont change anything by breaking into places or causing havoc the better.
oh and i hatched 5 royals last year. 4 ate, one wouldnt so i had to live feed. i didnt like it, but my baby lived. should i have let her die?


----------



## rakpeterson

and this stuff about testing medical techniques and drugs on human subjects is an idea but not a great one,as it would never work. Are you going to volunteer for a procedure that could kill you, leave you brain damaged, paralysed, deformed etc. There would never be enough subjects to do the amount of research needed.

I dont like the idea of animal testing, infact I really do hate it, but what are the realistic options??


----------



## Lynne

rakpeterson said:


> and this stuff about testing medical techniques and drugs on human subjects is an idea but not a great one,as it would never work. Are you going to volunteer for a procedure that could kill you, leave you brain damaged, paralysed, deformed etc. There would never be enough subjects to do the amount of research needed.
> 
> I dont like the idea of animal testing, infact I really do hate it, but what are the realistic options??


well, in the victorian days testing was done on murderers, rapists and paedophiles.


----------



## rakpeterson

Lynne said:


> well, in the victorian days testing was done on murderers, rapists and paedophiles.


Well an idea i suppose, butr not sure if its one id subscribe to.


----------



## cat1974

*well said*

well said Lynne!

However.... and it is unfortunate..... havoc wreaking HAS ALWAYS proved most successful. Lobbying politicians basically does nothing. I have been trying for years......

I also must say to others who have broght this up, that never was an animal liberated who did not have a safe sanctuary organised. "BRITCHES"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britches_(monkey)
AS AN EXAMPLE.

Mink don't, but then mink who are released do not leave the compound of the mink farm........ It is simply done to cause a rise in the farms insurance policy and general annoyance to the farmers. They are recaptured and sold as coats. Mink were wreaking havoc in my hometown in the 70's and there are still no AR activists anywhere near there!

Any chicken/pig/monkey/kitten etc liberated is brought to a safe haven I assure you. Honestly, what could possibly motivate the rescuers otherwise? fame? fortune? Neither apply.

The havoc wreaked and bad press on fur farmers led to the ban on fur farming in the UK. I am Irish and certainly hope to see the same thing happen here whether it means sabotaging their factories or not. Remember there are non native mink in our rivers here (Ireland) already and no AR movement to speak of! If the bloomin animals weren't introduced in the first place they wouldn't be here. And they were introduced why???? To make coats.... human greed.

OK off me soap box now! lol
Cat


----------



## rakpeterson

cat1974 said:


> Hi glad to catch you as it's so hard to go back over 5 pages and reply to all!
> 
> First off I NEED to distance myself from PETA. I have and will never have anything to do with them. They are NOT respected by the general AR movement. As such I cannot comment on their dealings except to say that they DO KILL ANIMALS FOR NO GOOD REASON. I am NOT a PETA fan!
> 
> AR people do not buy animals or eat animal products or wear them. They do give homes to needy animals (the homeless, the dumped, those rescued from the likes of PETA shelters and pounds). So most have animals (unless landlords forbid it etc). I have my own house so can do what I can. So I do what I can and currently have 7 cats 2 dogs and 2 snakes. My limit is 2 for dogs as I can't walk more than that physically. * cats as that's all the room I have really. Snakes I'm not sure yet as I'm sure Eve wouldn't mind a little corn friend but I'd take advice first (from here).
> 
> So no I don't wear leather. Or silk or wool in fact! But I most certainly do give homes to needy animals. I'd do it for kids too if I was let! I don't place animals above humans. I recognise pain and try to stop it when and where I can.
> 
> NO real AR person would prefer an animal to die than find the right home I assure you. AR means no-kill, unlike PETA. (UNless they are suffering and cannot be cured obviously)
> 
> Thanks guys for your reasonable questions!
> Cat


But you contribute to the purposeful killing of rodents as well as whatever meat you feed the dogs/cats.

And i was of the impression that using animals for ''entertainment'' was a key aspect of the agenda. What is keeping dogs, cats, reptiles in captivity if its not for your own entertainment (i realise there may be other minor reasons ie companionship, but im sure you get my point).

So if those two points are correct that would make you about 80% AR, not quite 100%:lol2:


----------



## rakpeterson

cat1974 said:


> Mink don't, but then mink who are released do not leave the compound of the mink farm........ It is simply done to cause a rise in the farms insurance policy and general annoyance to the farmers. They are recaptured and sold as coats. Mink were wreaking havoc in my hometown in the 70's and there are still no AR activists anywhere near there!


Mink have definately been released into the wild by people who supported the AR agenda, iv seen them with my own eyes where i used to live.


----------



## Lynne

rakpeterson said:


> Well an idea i suppose, butr not sure if its one id subscribe to.


well these days, thanks to dna procedures mistakes are very rarely made. i watched a guy, who had killed young girls 20 years ago, emerge from court and try to kick a camera man, with a look of total hatred on his face. this was on tv. now, he will be kept for the next 20 odd years, by us, three meals a day, a wii in his cell along with a tv and probably sky. he wont pay council tax, we will just have to keep him. later in his sentence he will possibly be allowed days out. he killed umpteen young 15 year old girls and left families not knowing where they were for 20 years. i would actually shove the needle in his arm, plus he is classed as a human being, so an excellent subject for this i would think. and am sure those girls families would agree, as would women who had been raped, and families who had children abused by paedophiles. 
of course it wont happen, we are far too soft.


----------



## cat1974

*Rak*

I cannot comment on what you saw in the UK, I only know mink farms and activists here in Ireland.

Yes I contribute to the purposefu killing of animals to feed my animals. I hate that fact as I have said. However if you examine the real AR ideal you will see that with the prevention of breeding, the spaying and neutering etc., and the gradual progression of veganism, that in the future noe of this would be necessary. I would feed my cats/dogs vegan were it possible in Ireland. It's not.

You said: "And i was of the impression that using animals for ''entertainment'' was a key aspect of the agenda. What is keeping dogs, cats, reptiles in captivity if its not for your own entertainment (i realise there may be other minor reasons ie companionship, but im sure you get my point)."

animals for entertainment certainly is a part of the agenda. There you are right 100%. Breeding for cuteness, fluffiness, prettiness etc falls under the morally wrong category from an AR point of view. So does breeding per sey when there are so amny waiting homes in shelters and pounds.

Rescuing an animal, in AR terms (or indeed in any terms) is an admirable thing to do. Adam (python) couldn't survivie let loose here. Neither could Eve (corn). Neither could Touchlamp (epileptic cat) or Topaz (blind cat). 

AR is about valuing life basically. I value their lives so I do my best to help them live them. All my disableds enjoy life! And I intend to keep it that way. When suffering starts it is time to think of euthanasia but not before. I trust me and my vet for that.
Cat


----------



## cat1974

*Lynne*

I'd not shove the needle..... I'd stabthe knife. Needle too good for that kind....
Cat


----------



## cat1974

*well ok...*

I value good life....

Am against death penalty but some cases rile me like the one Lynne mentioned..... Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr............

Cat


----------



## Lynne

cat1974 said:


> I'd not shove the needle..... I'd stabthe knife. Needle too good for that kind....
> Cat


no, i mean the needle used to inject medicine thats being tested. i find it amazing that in singapore, i have family there, there is practically no crime, because they believe in an eye for an eye. yet you turn the tv on here and all you hear is stabbings and murders etc. makes you wonder who is right, and am being sarcastic there!!!! am going to run for prime minister, vote for me!!!!! :lol2::lol2:


----------



## rakpeterson

cat1974 said:


> in the future noe of this would be necessary. I would feed my cats/dogs vegan were it possible in Ireland. It's not.


But a cat or dog is evolved to eat meat, that is what they are, so feeding a cat or dog a vegan based diet is purely to fit in with your ideals, it has nothing to do with the welfare or rights of animals, the opposite infact. And you will never be able to feed your snakes vegan.



> animals for entertainment certainly is a part of the agenda. There you are right 100%. Breeding for cuteness, fluffiness, prettiness etc falls under the morally wrong category from an AR point of view.


The likelyhood is that your snakes were bred to be pretty, or carry a certain cosmetic trait, as well as your cats/dogs so by you keeping them, in my eyes, your indirectly contributing to this practise.


----------



## cat1974

*lol*

I meant the needle of death. I wrangle with that issue but basically think it is wrong to take a life......

Hard at times though!

Lynne what are you suggesting?
Cat


----------



## rakpeterson

cat1974 said:


> I value good life....
> 
> Am against death penalty but some cases rile me like the one Lynne mentioned..... Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr............
> 
> Cat


See this is a good point....

You oppose capital punishment, but their are certain elements of capital punishment that you seem to support ie extreme cases.

Its like the AR movement, you support most of it, as do many here, including myself to a degree, but you dont fully support it with every bone in your body.


----------



## cat1974

*Rak*

I Know this! about obligate carnivores! I am not stupid honestly. My snakes will always be fed bred animals (which I hate). THEY WILL NEVER BE FREE. Unless of course it is possible to free a captive bred snake????? Is that possible? Would the countries accept them??? Would they survive??? If so I will do it! Eeeek you have set my mind thinking as I have people in both the US and Aus! Wouldn't that be fine!!!! But that's another days wprk.....

As regards my contributing to the breeding practise...... ahem......
Sorry now but you are going too far.......
Rescuing an animal who is about to be killed (Adam) or who is lost (Eve - and the SPCA tried to find her home as did the girl who found her) is NOT contributing towards breeding.

I admit that I contribute to the industry (unfortunately) by buying frozen rats and vivs and lights etc. I admit to what I do. My reasons are adam and eve. I DO NOT contribute to the practise of breeding any animal. I spay and neuter.

I keep all my animals simply because nobody else will. I love them all the more for it. I have no interest in your ideal of prettiness. Adam and Eve are the best looking snakes in th world same as Jack and Poppy are the best looking dogs.

Seriously I know nothing about morphs and all that. I just think Adam and Eve are gorgeous and lap up th compliments here! I always pass them on though!
Cat


----------



## cat1974

*Oh rak!!!!!!!!!!*

I am totally anti- death penalty
I am also human and have suffered certain crimes where i WOULD LOVE to see them die!!!!!!
Is that a crime? to have human feelings?
The reason I oppose the death penalty is because I have these feelings! Its not fair to let the victim choose just in case the perp is innocent!
Otherwise we'd have a great time torturing innocents!
Rak please stop. Not everything revo;ves around AR. There are other important issues if you want to discuss them.


----------



## cat1974

*finally to rak*

I am sorry that I do not onform to your stereotype of an AR activist. Perhaps you should try to get to know one or two. You seem very prejudiced and have your own idea about how I should be, then attack me for not living up to your stereotype.
Sorry about that but it really is your problem of ignorance and not mine!
Take care,
cat
PS: PM me with any genuine questions you may have. As I said I want to extend the hand.....


----------



## rakpeterson

cat1974 said:


> Rak please stop. Not everything revo;ves around AR. There are other important issues if you want to discuss them.


Stop what, its a thread that you created about AR, im not going to talk about anything else on a thread about AR.

I will stop though, as it looks like you may be taking this the wrong way, and you have clearly just missed the point. I did say in an earlier post that I wasn't attempting to get at you or make things difficult, I thought you wanted to talk AR. All you stand for, I support the most of it, I just think you have incorrectly labeled yourself, but im not hear to force opinion or preach.


----------



## rakpeterson

cat1974 said:


> I am sorry that I do not onform to your stereotype of an AR activist. Perhaps you should try to get to know one or two. You seem very prejudiced and have your own idea about how I should be, then attack me for not living up to your stereotype.
> Sorry about that but it really is your problem of ignorance and not mine!
> Take care,
> cat
> PS: PM me with any genuine questions you may have. As I said I want to extend the hand.....


Not a stereotype, i know several people who class themselves as AR and then another few who actually know the differances between the various labels and like to be know by an alternative label. Rights is totally differant to welfare and that is the only point I tried to make as did many others.

I dont have an idea of what you should conform to and not once did I attack you, and seeing as you have said it to me, maybe I am not the ignorant one???

You dont need to reply to this, you clearly have taken this all the wrong way, but I cant be arsed now anyway.


----------



## Ssthisto

cat1974 said:


> and the gradual progression of veganism, that in the future noe of this would be necessary. I would feed my cats/dogs vegan were it possible in Ireland. It's not.


It's not possible in any country in the world. Cats are *obligate carnivores* just the same as snakes are - they will DIE without a diet containing meat. Dogs, although they are slightly more omnivorous than cats, are still *carnivores*. And yeah, I think it's cruelty to animals to try to feed a carnivore on a vegetarian diet for ethical reasons - if you're a vegetarian and want a pet that can eat vegetarian, don't adopt or rescue animals that are carnivores. Rabbits, sure. Iguanas, absolutely, they HAVE to be fed vegan. And in some ways iguanas and rabbits are harder for rescues to place because everyone wants kittens and puppies. But cats, dogs, snakes... they're carnivores.



> animals for entertainment certainly is a part of the agenda. There you are right 100%. Breeding for cuteness, fluffiness, prettiness etc falls under the morally wrong category from an AR point of view.


Breeding AT ALL - or keeping at ALL - is wrong from an Animal Rights point of view. Rescue is an animal WELFARE thing.



> AR is about valuing life basically.


Animal Rights is about removing animals from human influence... even if it means killing thousands of animals to no purpose.



cat1974 said:


> Unless of course it is possible to free a captive bred snake????? Is that possible? Would the countries accept them??? Would they survive??? If so I will do it! Eeeek you have set my mind thinking as I have people in both the US and Aus! Wouldn't that be fine!!!!


No, no it wouldn't be "fine". 

What it would be is a death sentence for the captive born and bred animals you're keeping AND potentially for wild populations too. Your animals have been exposed to animals from other countries, which may carry parasites/diseases that although they are immune to, other animals may not be. Take an animal from America and keep it in a house with animals from Europe and Indonesia, you're exposing it to lots and lots and lots of things that, if you returned the animal to America, could infect native species and wipe them out. That's even if little Eve got snapped up by the first hawk that saw her.

As for returning animals to Indonesia/Australia, you're more likely to be able to feed your snakes a vegan diet successfully or fly to the moon using only intestinal gas.


----------



## royalpython

cat1974 said:


> I Know this! about obligate carnivores! I am not stupid honestly. My snakes will always be fed bred animals (which I hate). THEY WILL NEVER BE FREE. Unless of course it is possible to free a captive bred snake????? Is that possible? Would the countries accept them??? Would they survive??? If so I will do it! Eeeek you have set my mind thinking as I have people in both the US and Aus! Wouldn't that be fine!!!! But that's another days wprk.....
> 
> As regards my contributing to the breeding practise...... ahem......
> Sorry now but you are going too far.......
> Rescuing an animal who is about to be killed (Adam) or who is lost (Eve - and the SPCA tried to find her home as did the girl who found her) is NOT contributing towards breeding.
> 
> I admit that I contribute to the industry (unfortunately) by buying frozen rats and vivs and lights etc. I admit to what I do. My reasons are adam and eve.* I DO NOT contribute to the practise of breeding any animal. I spay and neuter.*
> 
> I keep all my animals simply because nobody else will. I love them all the more for it. I have no interest in your ideal of prettiness. Adam and Eve are the best looking snakes in th world same as Jack and Poppy are the best looking dogs.
> 
> Seriously I know nothing about morphs and all that. I just think Adam and Eve are gorgeous and lap up th compliments here! I always pass them on though!
> Cat


You do contribute to the practice and breeding of animals... rats and mice bred in captivity in rodent farms, have to be bred so you can buy frozen rats and mice to feed to your snakes.

Also, the meat that is in your dog and cat food comes from captive bred chickens etc, so again, you are contributing to the farming/breeding of captive animals.


----------



## essexchondro

> You do contribute to the practice and breeding of animals... rats and mice bred in captivity in rodent farms, have to be bred so you can buy frozen rats and mice to feed to your snakes.
> 
> Also, the meat that is in your dog and cat food comes from captive bred chickens etc, so again, you are contributing to the farming/breeding of captive animals.


Agreed!

But she also contributes to the practice of breeding pet animals by owning pets as well. She might not breed the pet animals that she owns, and she might not have actually bought them either (if they're rescues), but she still participates in the "movement" of animals from one owner to another. This frees us space for the previous owner who may then fill that space with another animal; a demand may be created for another animal and that feeds back to the breeder who creates another animal to supply that demand. This is the basic principle of the economics of supply and demand and wherever you sit in that overall process you still contribute to that process.

Even the act of spaying and neutering (quite how that can be deemed ok by someone standing up for the rights of animals is beyond me!) contributes to the practice of breeding animals on a number of levels and also seem to contradict animal rights ideology. Spaying/neutering supports the vetinary industry. An industry which is build upon the concept of human interaction with animals in captivity (something animal rights activists are supposedly against). Spaying/neutering also creates animals that are biologically altered (tampered with?) by humans so as not to be able to do something that they should be able to do naturally (so that's ok but animal testing isn't?? Interesting logic!).

To be honest, animal rights activists sound a lot like religious people to me; deep down they know the absurdity of the doctrine that they're trying to follow so they (almost sub-consciously I suspect) water it down and play "pick and mix" with the concepts until they come up with a code of ethics/rules that they actually find workable...

and what turns out to be workable tends to be quite far removed from the original "starting point" doctrine.


----------



## ratboy

cat1974 said:


> Yes I contribute to the purposefu killing of animals to feed my animals. I hate that fact as I have said. However if you examine the real AR ideal you will see that with the prevention of breeding, the spaying and neutering etc., and the gradual progression of veganism, that in the future noe of this would be necessary. I would feed my cats/dogs vegan were it possible in Ireland. It's not.


Dogs and Cats are carnivores. Why would you make them suffer to fit your ideals ?

If you do not feed a cat meat, it will go out and kill something for itself.


----------



## royalpython

Good point! I even highlighted spaying and neutering without running those thoughts through my head.

i should also mention, that since rats and mice are omnivores, that the food chain doesn't actually end at mice and rats. rats and mice can be supplemented with chicken to boost their protein intake for nursing baby rats and mice. I don't believe rodent farms do this? but the rat and mouse food probably has some animal proteins in there i'd imagine. I know the food i give to my rodents has animal proteins, as they NEED proteins. 

Just like your cats and dogs NEED proteins, it's cruel to serve them up a dish of spinach and brocolli for the rest of their lives because you think it's unethical. That is animal cruelty. Plus you cant control cats, they'll find their food, and hunt the way nature intended them to.


----------



## ratboy

I really think she needs to read the Animal Welfare Act which states that all captive animals should be able to display their natural behaviours.

The natural behaviour of all predatory animals be they snakes, cats or dogs is to eat meat.


----------



## AshMashMash

ratboy said:


> Dogs and Cats are carnivores. Why would you make them suffer to fit your ideals ?


Also, there is NO source of Taurine from plant material available. Any entirely vegetarian diet will not contain taurine, which cats cannot synthesize. Ipso facto: one dead cat.


----------



## Lynne

cat1974 said:


> I meant the needle of death. I wrangle with that issue but basically think it is wrong to take a life......
> 
> Hard at times though!
> 
> Lynne what are you suggesting?
> Cat


am suggesting that, and i have thought this for years, that the testing done on animals, should be done on murderers, rapists and phaedophiles. i have always wondered what the reason was of testing on animals when their bodies dont work the same as ours. the victorians did any testing needed done on the three catagories of humans above. thats the alternative to 'animal' testing i think.
there are always alternatives if you look for them.


----------



## arthur cooke

Lynne, I don't think that any civilised society could possibly go along with that.
What if the person that's been experimented on was proved innocent.

Also many of the animals used in research are genetically bred to mimic humans so while that may have some truth in the past, It's now not so.

In keeping reptiles we kill more rats and mice than any researchers. Probably millions a week.

I don't think that you can keep most reptiles and then complain about animals used in research. After all our purpose in keeping animals for pleasure. Researchers generally have a more serious purpose in mind.
cheers arthur


----------



## Juggernaut

well that pissed on her bonfire


----------



## TtotheC

How did I not know about this thread? It's genius!


----------



## essexchondro

If you think of human beings as just another species of animal that inhabits this planet then the way in which we interact with other animals isn't really all that fundamentally different to the way in which other species interact with each other. After all, what is the real difference, from the "victims" point of view, in being a rabbit killed in the name of science, or a rabbit torn to pieces by a natural predator? Of course, the finer details of the relationship are vastly different, but the fundamental principle is the same; one species dominating another in order to aid its own survival/better its quality of life.

_Ethics, rights, welfare, good, evil_...they're all man-made concepts bourne only out of our ability - as a result of the evolution of our brains - to conceive of them in the first place! They are not absolutes and, somewhat ironically, it is natural that we should be doing whatever we deem necessary to survive and improve our lives...just like its natural for an eagle to kill a rabbit or a shark to kill a seal.

That, ultimately, is the problem with the animal rights doctrine as far as I understand it: it has no respect or regard for the realities of nature and evolution.


----------



## Juggernaut

essexchondro said:


> If you think of human beings as just another species of animal that inhabits this planet then the way in which we interact with other animals isn't really all that fundamentally different to the way in which other species interact with each other. After all, what is the real difference, from the "victims" point of view, in being a rabbit killed in the name of science, or a rabbit torn to pieces by a natural predator? Of course, the finer details of the relationship are vastly different, but the fundamental principle is the same; one species dominating another in order to aid its own survival/better its quality of life.
> 
> _Ethics, rights, welfare, good, evil_...they're all man-made concepts bourne only out of our ability - as a result of the evolution of our brains - to conceive of them in the first place! They are not absolutes and, somewhat ironically, it is natural that we should be doing whatever we deem necessary to survive and improve our lives...just like its natural for an eagle to kill a rabbit or a shark to kill a seal.
> 
> That, ultimately, is the problem with the animal rights doctrine as far as I understand it: it has no respect or regard for the realities of nature and evolution.


Yeah! wat he said! :whistling2:


----------



## Lynne

arthur cooke said:


> Lynne, I don't think that any civilised society could possibly go along with that.
> What if the person that's been experimented on was proved innocent.
> 
> Also many of the animals used in research are genetically bred to mimic humans so while that may have some truth in the past, It's now not so.
> 
> In keeping reptiles we kill more rats and mice than any researchers. Probably millions a week.
> 
> I don't think that you can keep most reptiles and then complain about animals used in research. After all our purpose in keeping animals for pleasure. Researchers generally have a more serious purpose in mind.
> cheers arthur


 
with dna these days there are very few mistakes made. and where would you rather live, singapore where there is no crime, women can walk around at any time and not worry about being raped or musrdered, and your kids can play without being kidnaped, because they believe in an eye for an eye. or here, where we are far to bloody soft and murderers, rapists and paedophiles get every priviledge accorded. christ they can even sue the police now!!!!!


----------



## ratboy

Lynne said:


> with dna these days there are very few mistakes made. and where would you rather live, singapore where there is no crime, women can walk around at any time and not worry about being raped or musrdered, and your kids can play without being kidnaped, because they believe in an eye for an eye. or here, where we are far to bloody soft and murderers, rapists and paedophiles get every priviledge accorded. christ they can even sue the police now!!!!!


Here.


----------



## Lynne

Juggernaut said:


> well that pissed on her bonfire


who's bonfire??


----------



## arthur cooke

There may be some thing in that Essex, AR does come across as a sort of religion, like religion they have to close their minds to the untrue and absurd.

The problem is that their are many out there that think they are animal rights but are actualy animal welfarists. It then appears on the surface that there are more ARs than there realy are.
cheers arthur


----------



## Onissarle

> However I DO support AR 100%. I am anti-hunting, anti-fishing, anti-vivisection, anti-meat, anti-fur, you name it!
> 
> I know the majority here would be pro many of these issues and I knew that when I joined.
> 
> All I ask is that for once, can we not bloody well focus on what we have in common, rather than what separates us????


It sounds like you expected everyone on this forum to be cruel and wicked people who would be flaming you just for supporting animal welfare and conservation issues. I think it's pretty clear that the vast majority of the people here will agree with you on the majority of points. 

Nobody has really raised any arguments against the issues you support because we're all animal lovers to one degree or another as you would expect to find on a forum dedicated to pet owners. What people are debating is how you are defining the terms "Animal Rights" and "Animal Rights Activist".



> First off I NEED to distance myself from PETA. I have and will never have anything to do with them. They are NOT respected by the general AR movement. As such I cannot comment on their dealings except to say that they DO KILL ANIMALS FOR NO GOOD REASON. I am NOT a PETA fan!


Just because you and the people in your niche don't like them doesn't mean that they aren't representative of the term "animal rights". The animal rights movement isn't driven by a loose throng of people each doing what they think is right. It is driven by large organisations that were founded and built on animal rights principles and have often been around a very long time. They have gained massive, well organised global support and, been recognised and acknowledged by governments around the world. In many cases they have been granted charitable status because of their 'good work'. That means that the public directly fund their activities and in doing so accept their definitions and agenda (even if only because they don't really understand it or haven't read the small print).

Whether you like it or not, such organisations as PETA, Animal AID and any number of others I could list have defined the modern meaning of the term "animal rights" in the public mind and in general usage. I've just googled around for definitions of "animal rights", "animal rights agenda" and "animal rights activist" and they all say pretty much the same thing.



> Any chicken/pig/monkey/kitten etc liberated is brought to a safe haven I assure you. Honestly, what could possibly motivate the rescuers otherwise? fame? fortune? Neither apply.
> 
> NO real AR person would prefer an animal to die than find the right home I assure you. AR means no-kill, unlike PETA.


I really wish that were true. Even the RSPCA has been documented as culling large numbers healthy animals for no reason (that's not counting the ones that seem to just vanish from their records) rather than trying to re-home them. They've even significantly reduced their capacity to rescue in some areas. Most animal rights organisations don't even try to rescue animals because it doesn't fit with the concept of "Total animal liberation". The phrase "Give me freedom or give me death" leaps to mind as a fair analogy.



> I keep all my animals simply because nobody else will. I love them all the more for it. I have no interest in your ideal of prettiness.


That sounds like a very nice get out clause to avoid the inherent contradiction of keeping pets. If I were closer, I'd quite happily offer to take all your reptiles off your hands to save you the moral dilemma. If you looked around for Irish reptile groups I'm sure you'd find plenty of good homes willing to take on a couple of pretty, healthy snakes from popular species as free rescues.

It's an excuse not a reason. You may have taken them on initially because they needed somewhere to go but you kept them for the same reason everyone here does (including myself), because we like reptiles and get pleasure from keeping them as pets and companion animals. However, I can see that admitting that your primary reason in continuing to own them being personal pleasure and satisfaction would be seen by most as contradictory to your animal rights standpoint.

I've taken on rescues and re-homes in the past, the most relevant is my Nile monitor. Niles are very large, powerful and aggressive lizards that are NOT 'pet' animals. They require a lot of space and in inexperienced hands can cause very serious injuries to their keepers. That's the kind of animal that you take on because "nobody else will".


----------



## Lynne

arthur cooke said:


> There may be some thing in that Essex, AR does come across as a sort of religion, like religion they have to close their minds to the untrue and absurd.
> 
> The problem is that their are many out there that think they are animal rights but are actualy animal welfarists. It then appears on the surface that there are more ARs than there realy are.
> cheers arthur


i am not an ar. like i said i eat meat, wear leather etc etc. i also believe that the human race is the most destructive on earth. i have rabbits, dogs, cats, horses and snakes, i consider these part of my family, not something to be used for my benefit. i also believe it would be more useful to the human race to use humans for these experiments. i always have done always will do. and what better humans than the dregs of the human race, who do things that even animals wouldnt do to each other. instead of sitting in their comfy cells with their tv's and wii's and three hot meals a day, shove some chemicals in them and see what happens. 
and i am talking murderers, rapists and phaedophiles. people that probably could never again be safely allowed out in the community.


----------



## Lynne

ratboy said:


> Here.


why, because here you wont get your hand cut off for stealing, or hanged for killing or stoned for sleeping with your pals wife!!!! 
if it were that or having to keep my kids in because a phaedophile has been given a house around the corner, i know where i would choose.


----------



## arthur cooke

Lynne, I agree that it seems these people get off lightly, perhaps sentences could be longer and prisons could be tougher.

You make the same mistake as AR, that it is ok to be cruel to humans.

There's no such thing as a crime free society,even in Singapore, either we live in a society that has human rights or we don't, you can't have it both ways. I has to be all inclusive, once you discriminate against one group legally, who's next.
cheers arthur


----------



## essexchondro

> am suggesting that, and i have thought this for years, that the testing done on animals, should be done on murderers, rapists and phaedophiles. i have always wondered what the reason was of testing on animals when their bodies dont work the same as ours. the victorians did any testing needed done on the three catagories of humans above. thats the alternative to 'animal' testing i think.
> there are always alternatives if you look for them.


But most animals do qualify as murderers, rapists, and paedophiles if you choose to ably those distinctly human concepts to other species;

Murderers - Any animal that sits above another in the natural food chain and kills its prey could be deemed a murderer.

Rapists - A lot of animal copulation looks (and with some species actually is!) more akin to rape than it is to "love making". 

Paedophilia - There are no laws about the age of concent in the wild. Biology determines when a female is ready to reproduce, but that doesn't necessarily mean a suitor won't "go through the motions" with her whilst she still a "minor". :whistling2:

The other main problem with testing on humans, of course, is that you aren't testing on a proper control animal unless humans are specially bred to be "guinea pigs" for future testing and are kept in a controlled environment all their lives up until the tests take place. 

Now this may be a wild generalisation, but my guess would be that murderers, rapists, and paedo's have a higher probability of being alcoholics, drug abusers, heavy smokers etc etc than the wider population. In addition they're almost certainly not going to be "normal" from a mental health perspective. Taking all that into consideration are they really valid test subjects, could their past lifestyles have effected them in any way that may invalidate the results of the tests and compromise safety protocol?


----------



## essexchondro

> Lynne, I agree that it seems these people get off lightly, perhaps sentences could be longer and prisons could be tougher.
> 
> You make the same mistake as AR, that it is ok to be cruel to humans.
> 
> There's no such thing as a crime free society,even in Singapore, either we live in a society that has human rights or we don't, you can't have it both ways. I has to be all inclusive, once you discriminate against one group legally, who's next.
> cheers arthur


I think it was Jews first, and then the disabled people, and then the gypsies. I could be wrong though, haven't studied history since doing my A-Level's. :whistling2:


----------



## Lynne

arthur cooke said:


> Lynne, I agree that it seems these people get off lightly, perhaps sentences could be longer and prisons could be tougher.
> 
> You make the same mistake as AR, that it is ok to be cruel to humans.
> 
> There's no such thing as a crime free society,even in Singapore, either we live in a society that has human rights or we don't, you can't have it both ways. I has to be all inclusive, once you discriminate against one group legally, who's next.
> cheers arthur


i didnt say it was crime free. i said they believe in an eye for an eye. as i do. what rights do the victims of these people have. none. and as i said they can now sue the police and prison service if they so much as stubb their big toe. they have the right of freedom taken away. the victims have all rights removed, getting married having kids, living, learning to drive, basically a murderers victim has ALL rights removed because of one peice of scum. 
its just my opinion. and i have seen this first hand, and seen the devastation a murderer can cause not just to the victims parents, but to entire families. i would imagine this subject should be discussed on another thread as we are going off topic on this thread.


----------



## Lynne

essexchondro said:


> But most animals do qualify as murderers, rapists, and paedophiles if you choose to ably those distinctly human concepts to other species;
> 
> Murderers - Any animal that sits above another in the natural food chain and kills its prey could be deemed a murderer.
> 
> Rapists - A lot of animal copulation looks (and with some species actually is!) more akin to rape than it is to "love making".
> 
> Paedophilia - There are no laws about the age of concent in the wild. Biology determines when a female is ready to reproduce, but that doesn't necessarily mean a suitor won't "go through the motions" with her whilst she still a "minor". :whistling2:
> 
> The other main problem with testing on humans, of course, is that you aren't testing on a proper control animal unless humans are specially bred to be "guinea pigs" for future testing and are kept in a controlled environment all their lives up until the tests take place.
> 
> Now this may be a wild generalisation, but my guess would be that murderers, rapists, and paedo's have a higher probability of being alcoholics, drug abusers, heavy smokers etc etc than the wider population. In addition they're almost certainly not going to be "normal" from a mental health perspective. Taking all that into consideration are they really valid test subjects, could their past lifestyles have effected them in any way that may invalidate the results of the tests and compromise safety protocol?


if your kids are ever murdered, or abducted by a phaedophile, would you feel the same???


----------



## ratboy

Lynne said:


> why, because here you wont get your hand cut off for stealing, or hanged for killing or stoned for sleeping with your pals wife!!!!
> if it were that or having to keep my kids in because a phaedophile has been given a house around the corner, i know where i would choose.


This is my home.

If I wanted to live in another country, I would be there... and not here.


----------



## Lynne

essexchondro said:


> I think it was Jews first, and then the disabled people, and then the gypsies. I could be wrong though, haven't studied history since doing my A-Level's. :whistling2:


you cannot compare what happened to jews etc with what these pervs do. if you do then its your mind thats warped. i dont believe its ok to be cruel to humans, but obviously the three categories i speak of do.


----------



## arthur cooke

I guess that humans do appear destructive but also we are kind, considerate and do lots of good, two sides of a coin.

Much of the damage we do to the environment was done through ignorance and now that we know, some thing is being done. Vast effort is being put into conservation, climate change is now a billion dollar industry.

I cannot go along with the idea that it is ok to experiment on people in place of rats and mice.
cheers arthur.


----------



## Lynne

ratboy said:


> This is my home.
> 
> If I wanted to live in another country, I would be there... and not here.


yes, but that doesnt make what happens in this country right. i am just pointing out the alternatives. does anyone else have any to point out? and as i said at one point in this country, this was done. bet it didnt cost millions to keep them in prisons then.


----------



## essexchondro

> if your kids are ever murdered, or abducted by a phaedophile, would you feel the same???


Probably not, but that because I would be emotionally involved and thinking with my heart and not my head. Science shouldn't be about emotion, and the kinds of decisions your talking about should be made objectively, not emotionally.


----------



## Lynne

arthur cooke said:


> I guess that humans do appear destructive but also we are kind, considerate and do lots of good, two sides of a coin.
> 
> Much of the damage we do to the environment was done through ignorance and now that we know, some thing is being done. Vast effort is being put into conservation, climate change is now a billion dollar industry.
> 
> I cannot go along with the idea that it is ok to experiment on people in place of rats and mice.
> cheers arthur.


it was done through ignorance!! tell that to the people in australia who have had relatives die because someone thought it would be fun to set a fire. tell that to that wee maddy who's parents are still searching for her, tell that to the families of the 10 and upward girls the guy murdered 20 years ago, and he has just been caught. 
i honestly cant beleive that someone is on here trying to stick up for paedophiles.


----------



## Lynne

essexchondro said:


> Probably not, but that because I would be emotionally involved and thinking with my heart and not my head. Science shouldn't be about emotion, and the kinds of decisions your talking about should be made objectively, not emotionally.


emotionally, ok so the murderer is emotionally killing his victims. the rapist is emotionally involved with his victim. rape is about dominance not emotion. phaedophiles do what they do because they understand normal emotion. i dont think so. 
i was aquainted once, years ago with a guy, and, i didnt know it at the time, but his son was a phaedophile. and he totally agreed with me. in fact he would castrate them first.


----------



## essexchondro

> you cannot compare what happened to jews etc with what these pervs do. if you do then its your mind thats warped. i dont believe its ok to be cruel to humans, but obviously the three categories i speak of do.


You're missing the point. For the Nazi's it was acceptable to treat Jews, disabled people, and gypsies in that way because, as far as they were concerned, those types of people were just as "scummy" as you say murderer's, rapists, and paedo's are. The Nazi's didn't think they were doing anything wrong just like you don't see anything wrong with what you're suggesting we should do with murderers, rapists, and paedo's.


----------



## arthur cooke

I cannot imagine what I would do if some thing happened to one of my family, 
devastated and want revenge, the normal human reaction to an event like that, I might be inclined to go after whoever had done it but society would stop me.
I would like justice, not torture.
cheers arthur


----------



## ratboy

Lynne said:


> yes, but that doesnt make what happens in this country right. i am just pointing out the alternatives. does anyone else have any to point out? and as i said at one point in this country, this was done. bet it didnt cost millions to keep them in prisons then.


It doesn't make using people for medical experiments right either.

Many murderers do so because they are mentally ill or at the very least a bit unhinged at the time of the event. Maybe they themselves have been the victims of abuse and fought back and murdered their abuser...

Would it be right to use these people for experimentation too ?


----------



## Lynne

essexchondro said:


> You're missing the point. For the Nazi's it was acceptable to treat Jews, disabled people, and gypsies in that way because, as far as they were concerned, those types of people were just as "scummy" as you say murderer's, rapists, and paedo's are. The Nazi's didn't think they were doing anything wrong just like you don't see anything wrong with what you're suggesting we should do with murderers, rapists, and paedo's.


as i say, this is for another thread. its unbelievable that people here are all in favour of these sickos rights, and are giving no thought to the punishment they are getting or the victims rights. perhaps pm's or msn would suffice for a proper debate. i love a debate.


----------



## essexchondro

> emotionally, ok so the murderer is emotionally killing his victims. the rapist is emotionally involved with his victim. rape is about dominance not emotion. phaedophiles do what they do because they understand normal emotion. i dont think so.
> i was aquainted once, years ago with a guy, and, i didnt know it at the time, but his son was a phaedophile. and he totally agreed with me. in fact he would castrate them first.


But science should be about rationalism, logic and objectivity. You want to use these people as guinea pigs in order to punish them (and I agree they don't get punished enough!), but the point of scientific experiments is to get scientifically valid results, not punish criminals. I don't believe you could get those results using people as guinea pigs (for reasons I've already highlighted) so where is the logic in using these people and how would it improve things for us?


----------



## Lynne

arthur cooke said:


> I cannot imagine what I would do if some thing happened to one of my family,
> devastated and want revenge, the normal human reaction to an event like that, I might be inclined to go after whoever had done it but society would stop me.
> I would like justice, not torture.
> cheers arthur


i know these feelings believe me. and prison is not justice. torture would be for what families have to live with for the rest of thier lives. our society are not for victims at all. perpetrators sign away all rights when they shove a knife in someone. imo


----------



## Rikki

Lynne said:


> as i say, this is for another thread. its unbelievable that people here are all in favour of these sickos rights


Not all murderers are bad people, this is very naive. EssexChondro is right, animal testing is an issue which should be viewed objectively, void of emotion.


----------



## Lynne

essexchondro said:


> But science should be about rationalism, logic and objectivity. You want to use these people as guinea pigs in order to punish them (and I agree they don't get punished enough!), but the point of scientific experiments is to get scientifically valid results, not punish criminals. I don't believe you could get those results using people as guinea pigs (for reasons I've already highlighted).


 
NO. the victorians did use them. and i agree with that way of thinking. i make no apologies. its an alternative.


----------



## Lynne

Rikki said:


> Not all murderers are bad people, this is very naive. EssexChondro is right, animal testing is an issue which should be viewed objectively, void of emotion.


 
jeez i laughed outloud at that. most murders are premeditated. its these murderers i mean. not the man or woman being beaten and killing to save thier own life. and believe me, at this point in time i am void of emotion.


----------



## essexchondro

> NO. the victorians did use them. and i agree with that way of thinking. i make no apologies. its an alternative.


So victorian science was better than the science of today?!?! And did victorian scientists have a better understanding of things than the scientists of today?

Science has come a long way in the last 100 plus years, why would you want to turn back the clock and why would you imply science has deteriorated in that time?

What you actually like are victorian ideas on crime and punishment...nothing to do with science (or at least it shouldn't be!).


----------



## Lynne

essexchondro said:


> So victorian science was better than the science of today?!?! And did victorian scientists have a better understanding of things than the scientists of today?
> 
> Science has come a long way in the last 100 plus years, why would you want to turn back the clock and why would you imply science has deteriorated in that time?
> 
> What you actually like are victorian ideas on crime and punishment...nothing to do with science (or at least it shouldn't be!).


well....watch the news, stabbings, rapes, kidnaps are on the increase. say i was a murderer. nowadays i am more likely to be caught. the thought of having a needle full of chemicals shoved in me. would make me think twice. and yes it has nowt to do with science. its just the anwer to something that has gone on for years. the government said years ago they would stop animal experiments if there were a viable alternative. this is. i know nothing about science. i do know about having things happen and finding out the punishment people will get is nothin compared to what families have to live with after a murder, or rape or a child has disappeared.
our society is more concerned with prisoners rights than victims rights. this cannot be correct surely.

oh and if were not for victorian scientists, we would not have the science we have today!!!
i really must go. look forward to catching up with this later.


----------



## cooljules

cat1974 said:


> Hi all,
> I decided to do a post here as some issues have been popping up with a few of my threads recently.
> 
> I'll explain. I am an AR activist. I am vegan and go to protests about fur/vivisection etc. I try to lie my life without hurting other life, basically.
> 
> This is who I am and I make no apologies for it. I would stand up for your right not to be hurt, for the right of your children not to be hurt, and of course for the right of the animals in your care not to be hurt.
> 
> I find RFUK wonderful. I came to snakes (my only reps so far) by accident as there was one about to be killed. I couldn't let an animal be killed so I said I'd take him. I came here, bought books, consulted my vet and asked my local herp dude for advice. Adam is doing soooooooo well now and is a big beautiful boy and I am thrilled and thank RFUK (my first port of call always) for that help.
> 
> I am still AR though.
> 
> I recently had a rescue siamese kitten and needed advice on siamese cats. I have had cats all my life but the breeding changes them and I wanted her to be happy. So I consulted a siamese site and got the advice I needed.
> 
> I never hide who I am. Ever. I am AR and bloody proud of it. I don't expect others to be (though I'd love if they were obviously). My Boyfriend eats meat and my family bred dogs (till my granny died - it was her hobby).
> 
> I know the way the media works and that many will think I am about to dig up their grannies......
> 
> It is NOT the case. I respect life end of story and as far as non-human animals are concerned yes, I have a serious problem with putting a price on life, but that is an issue that I will take up with anyone at their discretion. Discuss it yes, when you want to bring it up.
> 
> However if and when I am attacked I will defend myself pretty much like little Eve, rattle my tail a bit then bite!
> 
> I am a very easygoing person and can discuss anything rationally, but if my personal care of my "babies" is called into question I will basically fight back with all I have. Rescue is the one aspect of my life that I am bloomin proud of and I know I do well.
> 
> We are not crazy you know! Ask me any question about being AR and I will give you a straight answer.
> 
> Thanks and once again, thanks for all the advice with the snakes!
> Cat
> PS pics: http://www.reptileforums.co.uk/snakes/245089-adam-eve-pics-last.html



i eat meat and have leather...so i gues we cant be friends!


----------



## essexchondro

> well....watch the news, stabbings, rapes, kidnaps are on the increase. say i was a murderer. nowadays i am more likely to be caught. the thought of having a needle full of chemicals shoved in me. would make me think twice. and yes it has nowt to do with science. its just the anwer to something that has gone on for years. the government said years ago they would stop animal experiments if there were a viable alternative. this is. i know nothing about science. i do know about having things happen and finding out the punishment people will get is nothin compared to what families have to live with after a murder, or rape or a child has disappeared.
> our society is more concerned with prisoners rights than victims rights. this cannot be correct surely.
> 
> oh and if were not for victorian scientists, we would not have the science we have today!!!


See this is what I'm saying, you see today's society as relatively "lawless" and think that a return to victorian style punishment would act as a deterrant. You're talking about crime and punishment, you're not talking about how scientific experiments should/can be carried out to give good and worthwhile results. 

If you want to punish criminals more harshly then fair enough, but why compromise the quality of todays science by suggesting that their punishment has to be incorporated into science and scientific experimenting?

Without victorian science of course we wouldn't have the science of today. But that's not saying that victorian science was better than today's science, is it? After all, we've had 100 plus years to further our understanding way beyond that of the victorians! A return to victorian crime and punishment is one thing, don't ruin science by dragging it back to that era too!

Keep the punishment of criminals entirely separate from science...unless, of course, you wish to politicise science and turn it into an emotional rather than an objective pursuit.


----------



## AshMashMash

Lynne said:


> i know nothing about science.


And thus why you cant really comment. You're saying testing on people is a viable alternative? :? You nothing about science, how can you say that? Do you know the numbers involved, or the process, or anything at all?

Dont be so rediculous...


----------



## Pete Q

cat1974 said:


> Hi all,
> I decided to do a post here as some issues have been popping up with a few of my threads recently.
> 
> I'll explain. I am an AR activist. I am vegan and go to protests about fur/vivisection etc. I try to lie my life without hurting other life, basically.
> 
> This is who I am and I make no apologies for it. I would stand up for your right not to be hurt, for the right of your children not to be hurt, and of course for the right of the animals in your care not to be hurt.
> 
> I find RFUK wonderful. I came to snakes (my only reps so far) by accident as there was one about to be killed. I couldn't let an animal be killed so I said I'd take him. I came here, bought books, consulted my vet and asked my local herp dude for advice. Adam is doing soooooooo well now and is a big beautiful boy and I am thrilled and thank RFUK (my first port of call always) for that help.
> 
> I am still AR though.
> 
> I recently had a rescue siamese kitten and needed advice on siamese cats. I have had cats all my life but the breeding changes them and I wanted her to be happy. So I consulted a siamese site and got the advice I needed.
> 
> I never hide who I am. Ever. I am AR and bloody proud of it. I don't expect others to be (though I'd love if they were obviously). My Boyfriend eats meat and my family bred dogs (till my granny died - it was her hobby).
> 
> I know the way the media works and that many will think I am about to dig up their grannies......
> 
> It is NOT the case. I respect life end of story and as far as non-human animals are concerned yes, I have a serious problem with putting a price on life, but that is an issue that I will take up with anyone at their discretion. Discuss it yes, when you want to bring it up.
> 
> However if and when I am attacked I will defend myself pretty much like little Eve, rattle my tail a bit then bite!
> 
> I am a very easygoing person and can discuss anything rationally, but if my personal care of my "babies" is called into question I will basically fight back with all I have. Rescue is the one aspect of my life that I am bloomin proud of and I know I do well.
> 
> We are not crazy you know! Ask me any question about being AR and I will give you a straight answer.
> 
> Thanks and once again, thanks for all the advice with the snakes!
> Cat
> PS pics: http://www.reptileforums.co.uk/snakes/245089-adam-eve-pics-last.html


Hi Cat
I want to just start by saying I respect you for being honest and some of the things you do for animals.
I have alot of experience with AR people, and in my experience there are different degrees of what they stand for and what they think being a ARA really is.
I have had many years debating with ARA and they have made it clear to me many times that they consider pets as slaves and that anyone who keeps pets ( unless rescued ) are support slavery and are not truely ARA.
They would be classed as AW. So while you may think this is a great website, and it is, animals rights people would not agree, infact the want to ban reptile keeping, and ALL pet keeping.


----------



## Lynne

AshMashMash said:


> And thus why you cant really comment. You're saying testing on people is a viable alternative? :? You nothing about science, how can you say that? Do you know the numbers involved, or the process, or anything at all?
> 
> Dont be so rediculous...


i can comment on anything i wish. i made a statement and i stand by that statement. always have and i always will. i know nothing about science, but i do know it was done before. and tbh we dont live in a law abiding society. murders are increasing, as are rapes. parents dont even have the right to ptotect children better by being informed if a child molester is living the that area. i know crime is on the increase, and this could be used as a deterrent. and until you can spell the word, dont tell anyone not to be ridiculas!!!!! : victory:


----------



## dragonbreeder

dragonbreeder said:


> having read the first post and not seing what provoked it and presuming it was just a random post.
> i have come to the conclusion that the OP thought that it would be a touchy subject for a good "debate" which, due to the current state of our hobby with so many against it, has instead turned into an argument.
> or, at least, having only read the first and last post
> *will turn into an argument very soon.*
> 
> Erik



: victory:


----------



## Lynne

dragonbreeder said:


> : victory:


its a debate erik. you cant beat a good debate!!!! :lol2:


----------



## dragonbreeder

Lynne said:


> its a debate erik. you cant beat a good debate!!!! :lol2:



very true Ms. Kyle


----------



## Lynne

dragonbreeder said:


> very true Ms. Kyle


: victory:: victory:


----------



## essexchondro

Lynne, so will you admit that you're looking at this from a crime and punishment perspective and haven't really considered whether animal testing on murderers etc would actually be a good thing from an advancement of science perspective?

Like I said, I've no problem with you wanting to punish criminals more harshly, but I do have a problem with you suggesting it be done in a way that might reduce the quality of science as it stands today. Saying that the victorians did it is no justification for it being done now...and whatever justification you think there is, if you're going to step on the toes of science it should be rational and objective justification, employed for the betterment of science, not for emotive "crime and punishment" reasons which have nothing to do with scientific advancement.


----------



## arthur cooke

I'm absolutely not defending rapists etc etc, I'm defending my right to live in a civilised society.

By the way I live in Hackney, surrounded by crime, rape and murder are every day occurrences here.

There is a case for longer tougher sentencing but that is a completely different thing in wanting to use science and research as a method of punishment.

Who would you get to carry out this research, most scientist would refuse point blank to undertake such research.

As I pointed out earlier, many animals used today are genetically modified to suit the research.
Modern science will bring us and our children (animals too) huge benefits in this next ten years. For this we sacrifice a few rats and mice.

When something works on animals then the next stage is human testing, no drug can be approved without it.
I wonder how many of these ARs would see their wives or loved ones die rather than use a drug tested on animals. I bet very few. Their principles seem to go by the board then.
cheers arthur


----------



## ratboy

Lynne said:


> and until you can spell the word, dont tell anyone not to be ridiculas!!!!! : victory:


you mean ridiculous from the latin ridiculus


----------



## arthur cooke

I'd like to ask the question, what do people see as wrong in using animals for research?
cheers arthur


----------



## Lynne

essexchondro said:


> Lynne, so will you admit that you're looking at this from a crime and punishment perspective and haven't really considered whether animal testing on murderers etc would actually be a good thing from an advancement of science perspective?
> 
> Like I said, I've no problem with you wanting to punish criminals more harshly, but I do have a problem with you suggesting it be done in a way that might reduce the quality of science as it stands today. Saying that the victorians did it is no justification for it being done now...and whatever justification you think there is, if you're going to step on the toes of science it should be rational and objective justification, employed for the betterment of science, not for emotive "crime and punishment" reasons which have nothing to do with scientific advancement.


murderers, rapists and phaedophiles are, although we may not like it, humans. they have human bodies which work in the same way ours does. rabbits bodies dont. dogs bodies dont, even rats and mice bodies dont. rabbits actually, and i dont know if you know this, are more akin to the horse body wise. they are both grazers, the stomaches have to work so many hours in each day, they both cannot throw up etc etc.
it makes sense to experiment on the things the srugs will be used on. in my opinion. and you wont change it im afraid.


----------



## ratboy

arthur cooke said:


> I'd like to ask the question, what do people see as wrong in using animals for research?
> cheers arthur



As long as the animals are humanely killed at the first sign of pain or at the very instant an experiment that will cause pain has been proven... nothing.


----------



## Lynne

ratboy said:


> you mean ridiculous from the latin ridiculus


yes. i was using the latin. :whistling2:


----------



## ratboy

Lynne said:


> yes. i was using the latin. :whistling2:


Your spelling of it was incorrect though :Na_Na_Na_Na:


----------



## essexchondro

> murderers, rapists and phaedophiles are, although we may not like it, humans. they have human bodies which work in the same way ours does. rabbits bodies dont. dogs bodies dont, even rats and mice bodies dont. rabbits actually, and i dont know if you know this, are more akin to the horse body wise. they are both grazers, the stomaches have to work so many hours in each day, they both cannot throw up etc etc.
> it makes sense to experiment on the things the srugs will be used on. in my opinion. and you wont change it im afraid.


That is an ill informed opinion though, Lynne. They test on animals precisely because they have a suitable degree of relatedness/similarity to humans for the tests to be scientifically valid. You talk with far to much authority on the subject for someone who's already admitted they don't do science.


----------



## Lynne

arthur cooke said:


> I'd like to ask the question, what do people see as wrong in using animals for research?
> cheers arthur


i think i answered that. they are nothing like humans, and thier bodies dont react the way ours would most of the time. after they have been used in these experiments very few can be rehomed as the only human contact they have had is someone opening a cage door to shove a needle in them. but que sera sera. im not going to change anything, but it does open the way for great discussions.


----------



## Pete Q

Cat.
Very simply question that would tell all.
Are you againest keeping pets ? thats every animal.


----------



## Lynne

ratboy said:


> Your spelling of it was incorrect though :Na_Na_Na_Na:


my finger slipped on keyboard im afraid. i was too late to edit.


----------



## Lynne

essexchondro said:


> That is an ill informed opinion though, Lynne. They test on animals precisely because they have a suitable degree of relatedness/similarity to humans for the tests to be scientifically valid. You talk with far to much authority on the subject for someone who's already admitted they don't do science.


oh i did do science. at school. but im not a scientist. i am someone who has, perhaps because of personal reasons, a very strong, and you may think blinkered opinion, on this subject. i dont apologise for it, as its my opinion and my belief.


----------



## royalpython

I think I just visualise a defenceless animal with the idea of it being tortured for human gain.

I have no idea what tests they do though, so in reality i cant really comment


----------



## Lynne

royalpython said:


> I think I just visualise a defenceless animal with the idea of it being tortured for human gain.
> 
> I have no idea what tests they do though, so in reality i cant really comment


jonny, i feed my snakes rats and mice. are they not cute and cuddly. you know me better than that. my reasons for being against animal experiments are detailed in an earlier post. 
they spray hairspray in rabbits eyes, they make dogs smoke upward of 40 **** a day etc etc. im not talking cancer drugs here or any life threatening drugs. these HAVE to be tested.
christ if they send me 40 **** a day i will smoke them for them!!!!
and it has been proven thats rabbits eyes are not like ours, and dogs lungs are not like ours either.
oh and sorry jonny, i thought you wrote that 'i' visualised cute and cuddly things!!! specs are coming out.


----------



## ratboy

Lynne said:


> jonny, i feed my snakes rats and mice. are they not cute and cuddly. you know me better than that. my reasons for being against animal experiments are detailed in an earlier post.
> they spray hairspray in rabbits eyes, they make dogs smoke upward of 40 **** a day etc etc. im not talking cancer drugs here or any life threatening drugs. these HAVE to be tested.
> christ if they send me 40 **** a day i will smoke them for them!!!!
> and it has been proven thats rabbits eyes are not like ours, and dogs lungs are not like ours either.
> oh and sorry jonny, i thought you wrote that 'i' visualised cute and cuddly things!!! specs are coming out.


Do you actually know that these things still go on ?

There are far quicker ways of inducing cancer these days and the procedures you are detailing are very 60's and 70's.


----------



## Lynne

ratboy said:


> Do you actually know that these things still go on ?
> 
> There are far quicker ways of inducing cancer these days and the procedures you are detailing are very 60's and 70's.


i dont think its to induce cancer actually. and they still use these procedures unfortunately. but most cosmetics companies have taken notice of public opinion and do not test the cosmetics or shampoos etc on animals. same as some folk wont buy eggs laid by battery hens etc. i witnessed a great row in my local morrisons once. the guy wanted the cheapest eggs as he was paying, and his wife insisted on free range.


----------



## ratboy

Lynne said:


> i dont think its to induce cancer actually. and they still use these procedures unfortunately. but most cosmetics companies have taken notice of public opinion and do not test the cosmetics or shampoos etc on animals. same as some folk wont buy eggs laid by battery hens etc. i witnessed a great row in my local morrisons once. the guy wanted the cheapest eggs as he was paying, and his wife insisted on free range.


Yes, but now smoking has been linked to almost every ailment you can think of, I would highly doubt that scientists could justify forcing dogs to chain smoke since every experiment they do has to have a reason and justification.


----------



## SiUK

Lynne said:


> i think i answered that. they are nothing like humans, and thier bodies dont react the way ours would most of the time. after they have been used in these experiments very few can be rehomed as the only human contact they have had is someone opening a cage door to shove a needle in them. but que sera sera. im not going to change anything, but it does open the way for great discussions.


what about for medical science? because its fact that some now very common operations the breakthroughs came from animal research, nowI dont agree with animal testing for any sort of cosmetic purpose and tbh I dont like animal testing in general I think its horrible for the animals and it does make me sad, but I can see where it has benefitted.


----------



## Lynne

ratboy said:


> Yes, but now smoking has been linked to almost every ailment you can think of, I would highly doubt that scientists could justify forcing dogs to chain smoke since every experiment they do has to have a reason and justification.


you would think so wouldnt you. even an ingrown toenail is down to smoking. but it does still go on. 
public opinion is the only thing that will stop this. that was proven by folk buying cruelty free cosmetcs, shampoos etc etc. and i have sprayed hairspray in my eyes, and i can tell you it does bloody hurt. those rabbits are fastened into stocks and thier eyes are forced open and this is sprayed into both. along with other things that are tested this way.


----------



## arthur cooke

Considering the amount of testing that goes on, we'd run out of humans to use.

You cannot close your mind to fact surely, hundreds of mice might be involved in an experiment and that experiment will be repeated and when the research paper is published other scientist will try to duplicate the experiment. Using more mice.
Mice and rats make much more sense than humans, humans are slow breeders, where as rats and mice breed several times a year and so there is an endless supply.
cheers arthur.


----------



## Lynne

arthur cooke said:


> Considering the amount of testing that goes on, we'd run out of humans to use.
> 
> You cannot close your mind to fact surely, hundreds of mice might be involved in an experiment and that experiment will be repeated and when the research paper is published other scientist will try to duplicate the experiment. Using more mice.
> Mice and rats make much more sense than humans, humans are slow breeders, where as rats and mice breed several times a year and so there is an endless supply.
> cheers arthur.


which would be fine if they were made like humans. but they aint.


----------



## arthur cooke

I agree ratboy,I don't think they do those kinds of test anymore. Cosmetic testing is banned in the EU.

Nowdays mice engineered to be prone to cancer are used. Also as far as I know, animals used in research are never rehomed afterwards, they are killed for post mortam purposes.

With todays pain killers I doubt whether animals feel much pain.
cheers arthur


----------



## Lynne

arthur cooke said:


> I agree ratboy,I don't think they do those kinds of test anymore. Cosmetic testing is banned in the EU.
> 
> Nowdays mice engineered to be prone to cancer are used. Also as far as I know, animals used in research are never rehomed afterwards, they are killed for post mortam purposes.
> 
> With todays pain killers I doubt whether animals feel much pain.
> cheers arthur


not at all, i know two dog behaviourists who do rehoming with theses dogs. and almost always they have to go to specialist homes. all have lifelong problems because, as i said, all they knew of humans was they opened a cage door, and stuck a needle in them. most will be euthanised, some are not.


----------



## SiUK

*Lynne*



SiUK said:


> what about for medical science? because its fact that some now very common operations the breakthroughs came from animal research, nowI dont agree with animal testing for any sort of cosmetic purpose and tbh I dont like animal testing in general I think its horrible for the animals and it does make me sad, but I can see where it has benefitted.


I posted this but it got lost in the turn of the page.


----------



## Lynne

SiUK said:


> I posted this but it got lost in the turn of the page.


 


i think most people nowadays buy shampoos etc that are not animal tested. but if they wanna ask me i can tell them what it feels like to shove hairspray in my eyes!!!! it nipped then went into a big clump!!!! lol


----------



## vickylolage

arthur cooke said:


> I'd like to ask the question, what do people see as wrong in using animals for research?
> cheers arthur


I see it wrong because people use animals to fathom out our problems. Ive said this before I think if you need to find something out about something that affects a certain species so for example curing a disease in people then people should be used to test on. Not animals.

Its unfair because as we inflict procedures on other creatues who quite frankly I dont think are bothered about finding cures but are subjected to finding it by being tested on. If you ask you dog or something "do you want to know how to cure asthma?" He would stare blankly and start licking himself (I chose asthma because its less provocative than something like cancer and both my sister and mother suffer from it)

Its like medical research its not 100% that the way a drug affects a dog will affect a human in the same way so personally I think we should test on humans to solve our own problems and leave the animals alone. If you took a child into a lab and tested on it WW3 would break out... but people take a puppy and do it and its seen as "necessary"

A philosopher (cant for the life of me remember his name) had a debate about animal testing and someone said to him "Aniamls arent on the same mental and emotional levels as us so it doesnt matter" or something to that affect. His reply was "Well in that case why not test on mentally retarded children?" Now that provoked some arguements lol


----------



## Pete Q

I'd like to keep the subject on AR and pets, closer to our hearts.
The subject / thread seems to be going the wrong way. : victory:


----------



## Lynne

Pete Q said:


> I'd like to keep the subject on AR and pets, closer to our hearts.
> The subject / thread seems to be going the wrong way. : victory:


i regard animals that share my home as my companions, they cant possibly be regarded as 'slaves', cause its me that runs round after them.


----------



## Ssthisto

vickylolage said:


> Its like medical research its not 100% that the way a drug affects a dog will affect a human in the same way so personally I think we should test on humans to solve our own problems


If they'd tested the antibiotic Doxycycline on me, it wouldn't be in common usage today (it makes my throat swell shut). Same goes for latex-based things, Sulfa antibiotics and even paracetamol (makes my joints swell and go intensely painful) ... so humans don't all react to drugs the same way either. 

Dogs are *enough* like people in the things that they test on dogs (and mice are enough like people for the things they use to test on mice) to make it valid.

I find "cosmetic" testing reprehensible. Label the bottle "do not get in eyes" if you must, but no, it isn't right to put the stuff in an animal's eye if it isn't to help treat or save lives. Shampoo's a "want" not a "need".

Far as it goes, *I* used to think I was for animal rights too - up until I learned that being animal rights = no companion animals, no welfare for captive animals, just no animals in captivity and all captive animals dying out entirely. I'm an animal WELFARIST and damn proud of that.


----------



## vickylolage

Im not an AR and dont claim to be. If I had to say what I was it would be a welfarist.

Your allergies sounds horrible!! I know my sister is allergic to persil (or something in it) made her go all rashy and ill. I dont know I just dont like the thought of testing on animals for any purpose whether it be medical or cosmetic. (Certainly not cosmetics because as you said its a want not a need)


----------



## Lynne

vickylolage said:


> Im not an AR and dont claim to be. If I had to say what I was it would be a welfarist.
> 
> Your allergies sounds horrible!! I know my sister is allergic to persil (or something in it) made her go all rashy and ill. I dont know I just dont like the thought of testing on animals for any purpose whether it be medical or cosmetic. (Certainly not cosmetics because as you said its a want not a need)


agree totally. i would say i was a welfarist too. as i said i wear leather, eat meat etc. but i am choosy about where i buy my beef. i saw that programme about big stores plumping it out. local butchers is the way to go. should we start a welfarist club?


----------



## essexchondro

> oh i did do science. at school. but im not a scientist. i am someone who has, perhaps because of personal reasons, a very strong, and you may think blinkered opinion, on this subject. i dont apologise for it, as its my opinion and my belief.


Lynne, everyone does science at school so that's not really saying all that much, and it certainly doesn't qualify you to make the types of comments that you're making on the science behind animal testing. I appreciate that you have a strong, personal, and unwaivering opinion on the subject...and that's what worries me to be honest with you. You absolute adherence to a particular idea regardless of evidence and reasoned argument to the contrary is decidedly un-scientific and is more akin to religious faith. Such thinking and attitude has no place in good science, I'm afraid.


----------



## Gaboon

SiUK said:


> what about for medical science? because its fact that some now very common operations the breakthroughs came from animal research, nowI dont agree with animal testing for any sort of cosmetic purpose and tbh I dont like animal testing in general I think its horrible for the animals and it does make me sad, but I can see where it has benefitted.


I think you nailed it here SiUK. 

If medical science did not turn to animals as test subjects many off us may not be around now. I know I wouldent. 

The fact of the matter is we are able to learn a hell of a lot from the mammalian anatomy of a mouse/rat/primate. Its not the nicest fact of life but neither is a slaughter house a pretty sight but dam meat tasts so good, we are omnivores are we not? Christ! Enjoy it! Meat is frigging awesome!! 

If you choose to live in the real world it helps to just except that animals do, will, always have, and will continue to suffer for our means. 

So, instead of being one of these people that kicks off because a few thousand animals have been used to test out a new drug or surgery which has the potential to save millions of lives why cant you just be amazed? 

Do ARA's go to hospitals when they are ill? Or do they mope around bitching about 'rights' etc etc. 

That question ''what gives you the right?'' really gets on my tits! For f**k sake what bloody right do you have to tell anyone their wrong!!!

I just want to add that I am against cosmetic testing and any use of animal life for cosmetic gain as I dont think there is a real need for it now. But, saying that I would not allow an army of mink to descend onto our native fauna :devil:. IDIOTS!!!


----------



## Pete Q

Lynne said:


> i regard animals that share my home as my companions, they cant possibly be regarded as 'slaves', cause its me that runs round after them.


 Hi Lynne
I'm only going to say what a true ARA would say.
They are still slaves, they are not free, they are kept againest their will.
Human slaves were looked after / kept by their masters the same as pets.


----------



## arthur cooke

But Vicky, your argument falls down because animal are engineered, the ones with human cells are called chimaras. Also if you used humans you'd literally run out of humans.

Why we can't use mentally ill people is the same reason we can't use rapist etc. if humans have rights they must apply to all and that precludes using humans.

It's an emotive trick by ARs to talk about the nasty researchers, but research in the UK is governed by strict rules and you would not now be allowed to spray hair spray in a dogs eyes.

Also research animals cost quite a lot of money as they are bred specifically for research.
cheers arthur


----------



## Gaboon

arthur cooke said:


> But Vicky, your argument falls down because animal are engineered, the ones with human cells are called chimaras. Also if you used humans you'd literally run out of humans.
> 
> Why we can't use mentally ill people is the same reason we can't use rapist etc. if humans have rights they must apply to all and that precludes using humans.
> 
> It's an emotive trick by ARs to talk about the nasty researchers, but research in the UK is governed by strict rules and you would not now be allowed to spray hair spray in a dogs eyes.
> 
> Also research animals cost quite a lot of money as they are bred specifically for research.
> cheers arthur


Plus _in vitro _(cells cultured outside of host body)pathology techniques are getting better and more advanced.


----------



## vickylolage

arthur cooke said:


> But Vicky, your argument falls down because animal are engineered, the ones with human cells are called chimaras. Also if you used humans you'd literally run out of humans.
> 
> Why we can't use mentally ill people is the same reason we can't use rapist etc. if humans have rights they must apply to all and that precludes using humans.
> 
> It's an emotive trick by ARs to talk about the nasty researchers, but research in the UK is governed by strict rules and you would not now be allowed to spray hair spray in a dogs eyes.
> 
> Also research animals cost quite a lot of money as they are bred specifically for research.
> cheers arthur


 
Fair enough I dont know wnough to argue as such I just dont like animal testing. As for testing on humans and things just something I read was all thought it might be valid. I understand animal testing will never stop its something we'd have to accept but I just dont really like it


----------



## essexchondro

> which would be fine if they were made like humans. but they aint.


You keep making this point, Lynne, but the reality is that the animals used are similar enough to humans to enable the tests conducted to provide scientifically valid results that are relevant to how humans would react in the same situation. If the animals used were so dis-similar to humans that any tests carried out gave irrelevant results there would be no point in testing in the first place, would there?

Just because an animal doesn't look human, it doesn't mean that it is not biologically and genetically very similar to a human. Similar enough for it to be a valid test subject, anyway.


----------



## essexchondro

> Fair enough I dont know wnough to argue as such I just dont like animal testing. As for testing on humans and things just something I read was all thought it might be valid. I understand animal testing will never stop its something we'd have to accept but I just dont really like it


I don't think anyone does..but there aren't any viable alternatives, I'm afraid.


----------



## Lucifus

Im all for medical testing. A lot of our vaccines and antivenoms come from animals. Stem cell research which could cure and help the entire human race is also used on animals. With mice and other animals being used as food i dont see why we shouldnt do tests on them.


----------



## Big Red One

Just read the first post, got bored after sentence 1 and 2 of the second pragraph.
Thought ' so what' and posted this.

Think I'll post a thread on a website somewhere to say I am male and have hands and feet, it's about as relevant and interesting..........

We're all different, long may it be that way. Many of you will disagree with my life and beliefs, as I will disagree with yours. Hey ho, let's all play nice and leave each other in peace eh ?

:2thumb:


----------



## arthur cooke

The OP was about AR so talking about some of the AR way of thinking is perfectly relevant.
cheers arthur.


----------



## Kami22

Lucifus said:


> Im all for medical testing. A lot of our vaccines and antivenoms come from animals. Stem cell research which could cure and help the entire human race is also used on animals. With mice and other animals being used as food i dont see why we shouldnt do tests on them.


Not alot of people are for animal testing... but I am as I hope to get my animal license soon  Im not saying this to spark debate but to highlight the high standard of care lab animals get... I wouldnt be able to bring myself to do what I do if they werent cared for properly... And animals are used as a last resort in all medical testing.


----------



## Lynne

essexchondro said:


> Lynne, everyone does science at school so that's not really saying all that much, and it certainly doesn't qualify you to make the types of comments that you're making on the science behind animal testing. I appreciate that you have a strong, personal, and unwaivering opinion on the subject...and that's what worries me to be honest with you. You absolute adherence to a particular idea regardless of evidence and reasoned argument to the contrary is decidedly un-scientific and is more akin to religious faith. Such thinking and attitude has no place in good science, I'm afraid.


omg, religious!!! ME!!!! i doubt that. no one has given me evidence or reasoned arguement. have they. and as i dont want to work in science then it wont matter. its hard to believe this thread is still running actually. excuse me while i wipe my eyes, im afraid the religous comment had me crying with laughter.


----------



## Lynne

Pete Q said:


> Hi Lynne
> I'm only going to say what a true ARA would say.
> They are still slaves, they are not free, they are kept againest their will.
> Human slaves were looked after / kept by their masters the same as pets.


pete thats what i mean. in no way am i an ara. these are just my opinions which i have every right to give. but im afraid in my house I am the slave!!! lol. my lot are not kept against thier will. i can leave any of my doors open, and only one of my 6 cats will want to go outside, and he does. the rest, including a wild cat, prefer to lie on my bed asleep. my horses are kept, and have been for the past 10 years, in thier own small herd. my rabbits have 24/7 access to the garden in an enclosed large run. animal testing has gone on for years, and will go on for a long long time. if one of the dogs barks to get out i run to let them out. my day is spent totally running after them. and i love it i must add.


----------



## Lynne

arthur cooke said:


> But Vicky, your argument falls down because animal are engineered, the ones with human cells are called chimaras. Also if you used humans you'd literally run out of humans.
> 
> Why we can't use mentally ill people is the same reason we can't use rapist etc. if humans have rights they must apply to all and that precludes using humans.
> 
> It's an emotive trick by ARs to talk about the nasty researchers, but research in the UK is governed by strict rules and you would not now be allowed to spray hair spray in a dogs eyes.
> 
> Also research animals cost quite a lot of money as they are bred specifically for research.
> cheers arthur


its rabbits eyes arthur not dogs. but like i said i have accidentally sprayed it in mine and can tell them what they want to know. lol


----------



## bosc888

I can accept that some people dont agree with animal testing but just take a moment to think about the huge advances in medicine that has resulted because of it.
I take it those people who disagree with it also refuse all medical help & just suffer for their beliefs, if so good on you:whistling2:
What I would suggest you do is get your heads out of the clouds & accept the reality that it's the best way for humans to make advances in medicine & whether you like it or not animals will always come second.
some of the arguments by a couple of people on this thread are amazingly naive & idealistic.


----------



## Lynne

bosc888 said:


> I can accept that some people dont agree with animal testing but just take a moment to think about the huge advances in medicine that has resulted because of it.
> I take it those people who disagree with it also refuse all medical help & just suffer for their beliefs, if so good on you:whistling2:
> What I would suggest you do is get your heads out of the clouds & accept the reality that it's the best way for humans to make advances in medicine & whether you like it or not animals will always come second.
> some of the arguments by a couple of people on this thread are amazingly naive & idealistic.


if you are referring to me, im neither naive nor have my head in the clouds. read my posts and you will see that. you dont know me personally, do you? so you cant comment on what i am like. i have asthma and emphysema which are managed by things possibly tested on animals. i simply offered an alternative to testing things meant for humans other than on animals. the ones who need to get heads out the clouds are the ones who think someone who deliberately takes a life, should have the same rights as someone who has never put a step wrong. or that we live in a lawful society. we dont. our laws and sentencing laws make this impossible. christ if i had murdered my husband, i would have been out after serving seven and a half years!!! is that justice do you think?


----------



## Rikki

Lynne said:


> if you are referring to me, im neither naive nor have my head in the clouds. read my posts and you will see that. you dont know me personally, do you? so you cant comment on what i am like. i have asthma and emphysema which are managed by things possibly tested on animals. i simply offered an alternative to testing things meant for humans other than on animals. the ones who need to get heads out the clouds are the ones who think someone who deliberately takes a life, should have the same rights as someone who has never put a step wrong. or that we live in a lawful society. we dont. our laws and sentencing laws make this impossible. christ if i had murdered my husband, i would have been out after serving seven and a half years!!! is that justice do you think?


 
Justice, and views of right and wrong, are completely subjective, and will differ throughout the world.


----------



## Lynne

Rikki said:


> Justice, and views of right and wrong, are completely subjective, and will differ throughout the world.


 i just hope if i am ever up for murder i get you lot on the jury. i would have more chance of walking out the door. pmsl!!!!


----------



## bosc888

No they should not have the same rights in terms of their freedom but they are entitled to their basic human rights although I agree with you on the point that in the uk prisons & sentencing seems to be far too lenient.
It is totaly unrealistic to suggest testing on criminals & as i have said before testing gets carried out on humans when the drug has been developed enough to be deemed safe.


----------



## Lynne

tbh they have more rights than some of the people that live in society. oap's who cant heat thier homes as they cant afford it. oap's opening the door and being pinned down and threatened with being killed in thier own home. an oap gent slashed on the face in the street just last week. do they not have the right to heat and live comfortably and to walk the streets in safety. 
there was a hullaballoo cause prisoners had to slop out!!!! now they all have flushing toilets. in MY opinion, and this is my opinion, i aint shoving it on anyone else, the day they commit a crime, they give up all rights to a comfortable existence, having things that some parents cant afford to buy for thier children.
oh and whats this on the news. 3 girls lost thier parents and brother in a fire started by someone else. but that someone else will have more 'RIGHTS' than these 3 girls. sick isnt it?


----------



## essexchondro

> omg, religious!!! ME!!!! i doubt that. no one has given me evidence or reasoned arguement. have they. and as i dont want to work in science then it wont matter. its hard to believe this thread is still running actually. excuse me while i wipe my eyes, im afraid the religous comment had me crying with laughter.


Lynne, I never said you was religious. I said the way you hold your opinion is similar to the way in which religious people hold theirs i.e its not actually based on anything rational or objective and therfore cannot really be dismantled and criticised by reason and logic. Like you've said, yours is a personal and clearly very emotive opinion...problem is those opinions should be kept well out of science, not mashed together like you're suggesting. 

I'll step away from this thread now.

cheers

Stuart


----------



## Lynne

i think i will too. its time for my tea.


----------



## ratboy

Lynne said:


> i just hope if i am ever up for murder i get you lot on the jury. i would have more chance of walking out the door. pmsl!!!!


20 years later maybe


----------



## Lynne

ratboy said:


> 20 years later maybe


no............seven and a half!!!! : victory:


----------



## Tristan

Do testing on pedophiles and murderers rather than animals. They might have something wrong with them medically or have a 'learned behaviour' from being abused in the past but if they're of normal intelligence and are serial offenders, perhaps these criminals should be tested on. 

Seems logical. Those kind of people have reduced themselves to less worth than an animals life anyway.


----------



## Big Red One

arthur cooke said:


> The OP was about AR so talking about some of the AR way of thinking is perfectly relevant.
> cheers arthur.


Thanks for the insight.. it's not really 'relevant' on a reptile forum tho is it ?

I have many more interests and hobbies etc, doesn't mean I post them all on here.


----------



## jackyboy

I am afraid i am with lynne entirely on this one 

christ lynne yuh could have your own talk show L K today lol

my best freind moved to singapore in 2007 and i intend to go and vistit him sometime and they do have an eye for an eye method 

and they are also very very cleen


----------



## Pete Q

Lynne said:


> pete thats what i mean. in no way am i an ara. these are just my opinions which i have every right to give. but im afraid in my house I am the slave!!! lol. my lot are not kept against thier will. i can leave any of my doors open, and only one of my 6 cats will want to go outside, and he does. the rest, including a wild cat, prefer to lie on my bed asleep. my horses are kept, and have been for the past 10 years, in thier own small herd. my rabbits have 24/7 access to the garden in an enclosed large run. animal testing has gone on for years, and will go on for a long long time. if one of the dogs barks to get out i run to let them out. my day is spent totally running after them. and i love it i must add.


This was my arguement to the ARA people, but you cannot talk to them, they seem so brain washed in the way they see things.
They then say that although I run round after them, we have control over weather they eat or drink, even life, we can desided to have them killed at any time.
Hey, I know your not ARA, know one here is, there are some people who may share some of their beliefs which is fine. I would like to quiz cat on the pets issue, not really interested in the rest as we know we will all differ on them.


----------



## Lynne

jackyboy said:


> I am afraid i am with lynne entirely on this one
> 
> christ lynne yuh could have your own talk show L K today lol
> 
> my best freind moved to singapore in 2007 and i intend to go and vistit him sometime and they do have an eye for an eye method
> 
> and they are also very very cleen


well my hubbies name is jeremy dont you know jack!!!!pmsl
pete i know you dont think that. and in no way would i ever have any of mine 'killed'. if they are ill or injured then thats a diff story, if there was no betterness for them and they were in pain, they would be humanely pts.


----------



## jackyboy

LOL i thoight it was malcome LOL:lol2::lol2:


----------



## Lynne

jackyboy said:


> LOL i thoight it was malcome LOL:lol2::lol2:


no, my second name is kyle!!!!:lol2::lol2:


----------



## jackyboy

i know

it just clicked after i wrote the post lol


----------



## Lucifus

Tristan said:


> Do testing on pedophiles and murderers rather than animals. They might have something wrong with them medically or have a 'learned behaviour' from being abused in the past but if they're of normal intelligence and are serial offenders, perhaps these criminals should be tested on.
> 
> Seems logical. Those kind of people have reduced themselves to less worth than an animals life anyway.


What the hell? You cant question the morality of animal testing then saying it should be done on humans who are considered immoral and "less than human". Using your chain of logic: How about foreign country members whos beliefs are different? How about the old, the disabled or other vulnerable groups as they take more away from society than give back.

Thats a very dangerous and quite frankly sickening proposal as country's are judged by how they care for their criminals and vulnerable groups and could easily be pushed further. Hitler used these ideals as well. Prison is for rehabilitation NOT murder and testing.



Kami22 said:


> Not alot of people are for animal testing... but I am as I hope to get my animal license soon  Im not saying this to spark debate but to highlight the high standard of care lab animals get... I wouldnt be able to bring myself to do what I do if they werent cared for properly... And animals are used as a last resort in all medical testing.


Exactly. If a high level of care is involved then i dont see the problem. I would however if they were treated badly.


----------



## Pete Q

Should of said Cannot talk to them on my last post. :blush:


----------



## Lynne

Pete Q said:


> Should of said Cannot talk to them on my last post. :blush:


i know, but i guessed what you meant!!!:lol2:


----------



## sandmatt

Lucifus said:


> What the hell? You cant question the morality of animal testing then saying it should be done on humans who are considered immoral and "less than human". Using your chain of logic: How about foreign country members whos beliefs are different? How about the old, the disabled or other vulnerable groups as they take more away from society than give back.
> 
> Thats a very dangerous and quite frankly sickening proposal as country's are judged by how they care for their criminals and vulnerable groups and could easily be pushed further. Hitler used these ideals as well. Prison is for rehabilitation NOT murder and testing.
> quote]
> 
> 
> In all fairness some criminals deserve it.. no amount of time in prison will change them, but i think its sickening to do it on any living being. All advanced lifeforms have senses and are well aware of what happens to them, whether they're mice, dogs or people.


----------



## Lynne

Lucifus said:


> What the hell? You cant question the morality of animal testing then saying it should be done on humans who are considered immoral and "less than human". Using your chain of logic: How about foreign country members whos beliefs are different? How about the old, the disabled or other vulnerable groups as they take more away from society than give back.
> 
> Thats a very dangerous and quite frankly sickening proposal as country's are judged by how they care for their criminals and vulnerable groups and could easily be pushed further. Hitler used these ideals as well. Prison is for rehabilitation NOT murder and testing.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. If a high level of care is involved then i dont see the problem. I would however if they were treated badly.


oh here we go again. for your info oaps gave their money to the country when they were working. they paid their money to get pensions. this country doesnt keep them, they paid for it. prison does not rehabilitate the three categories i mentioned, in fact most prisoners are back inside within a year. and lets not get dramatic. im neither dangerous or like hitler. ffs. i dont have a moustache for a start, nor do i part my hair in the middle.

oh and i know most are back inside within a year because a family member is a prison governer!!!!


----------



## bothrops

Lynne said:


> jonny, i feed my snakes rats and mice. are they not cute and cuddly. you know me better than that. my reasons for being against animal experiments are detailed in an earlier post.
> they spray hairspray in rabbits eyes, they make dogs smoke upward of 40 **** a day etc etc. im not talking cancer drugs here or any life threatening drugs. these HAVE to be tested.
> christ if they send me 40 **** a day i will smoke them for them!!!!
> and it has been proven thats rabbits eyes are not like ours, and dogs lungs are not like ours either.
> oh and sorry jonny, i thought you wrote that 'i' visualised cute and cuddly things!!! specs are coming out.


 
:lol2::lol2::lol2:!

Loved this thread - mostly everything has been said (I'm with EssexChondro and Ssthisto) I just have to ask Lynne - had you leapt back to the seventies when you made this post? Even when the AVL chucked the 'smoking dog' and 'crying rabbit' photo's around (and the cat with the electrical device on it's brain) they were grossly out dated!

The amount of legislation and red tape in order to gain a Home Office license to commence animal testing is unbeliveable. You have to prove beyong any level of doubt that the procedure you intend to use can be done in no other way and that it will cause absolute minimum stress.

Any proposal you talk of above would be in the bin quicker than you can say 'animal rights activist'!


Put it this way, when someone at uni wanted to do a behavoural experiment on prey (stickleback) response to a predator (perch), the Home Office stated that they weren't allowed to use real perch (too stressful) and each stickleback was only allowed to be exposed to the (model) perch for a maximum of 5 minutes in any 24hr period and must have suitable rufugia in the tank at all times....


...and your telling me you believe they still trap rabbits in stocks and pour perfume in their eyes and force dogs to smoke 40 a day!

:lol2:ROTFLMFAO!:lol2:


Cheers

Andy


----------



## Lynne

bothrops said:


> :lol2::lol2::lol2:!
> 
> Loved this thread - mostly everything has been said (I'm with EssexChondro and Ssthisto) I just have to ask Lynne - had you leapt back to the seventies when you made this post? Even when the AVL chucked the 'smoking dog' and 'crying rabbit' photo's around (and the cat with the electrical device on it's brain) they were grossly out dated!
> 
> The amount of legislation and red tape in order to gain a Home Office license to commence animal testing is unbeliveable. You have to prove beyong any level of doubt that the procedure you intend to use can be done in no other way and that it will cause absolute minimum stress.
> 
> Any proposal you talk of above would be in the bin quicker than you can say 'animal rights activist'!
> 
> 
> Put it this way, when someone at uni wanted to do a behavoural experiment on prey (stickleback) response to a predator (perch), the Home Office stated that they weren't allowed to use real perch (too stressful) and each stickleback was only allowed to be exposed to the (model) perch for a maximum of 5 minutes in any 24hr period and must have suitable rufugia in the tank at all times....
> 
> 
> ...and your telling me you believe they still trap rabbits in stocks and pour perfume in their eyes and force dogs to smoke 40 a day!
> 
> :lol2:ROTFLMFAO!:lol2:
> 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Andy


you know for a fact they dont do you!!!! then you are thicker than you look. oh and i didnt make this post. you will find cat did. maybe you should read things before you write.


----------



## Ssthisto

Lynne said:


> you know for a fact they dont do you!!!! then you are thicker than you look. oh and i didnt make this post. you will find cat did. maybe you should read things before you write.


Lynne, it's in the Animal Rights faction's interests to show you the WORST photos, no matter how dated, and describe them as the current normal state of affairs. 

That goes for slaughterhouses (They show the 5% of times it goes wrong instead of the 95% of the time it goes right - and slaughter is "ugly" even when it goes the best it can, it's a bloody messy business), circuses (photos of the worst and dirtiest conditions instead of photos of animals that are trained and happy because they have "jobs") and animal testing. They want you to think it's ALL that bad, rather than seeing a true cross-section of what it's actually like.

A lot of the tests you cite ARE very old tests indeed - thirty or more years in some cases. And the horrific photos are not necessarily the be-all and end-all of what testing is done. Psychological and behavioural studies ALSO come under the remit of "animal testing".


----------



## bosc888

sorry lynne but you are definitely a naive idealistic fool with some plainly stupid views,
nothing more to be said really as you just keep talking rubbish & suggesting things that will never happen.


----------



## arthur cooke

I wouldn' want to live in a country that did experiments on humans as a punishment.

Send them to jail for longer, make prisons a bit tougher, I can go with that.

The thread started off talking of animal rights, which is more than whether or not animals should be used for research.
One of their main priorities is to stop pet keeping, ie people like us who keep animals. They would like to see all dogs and cats neutered so that they die out.
Reptiles cannot be kept as pets, they are wild animals that in captivity, live less than a year. Its impossible to breed them so therefor most in captivity are taken from the wild. This trade in wild caught reptiles is bigger in terms of financial rewards, than the trade in illegal drugs.
It is the cause of many species being on the endangered list. All reptiles carry salmonella and are a risk to the general public.

This is their view of us and we are regarded with as much hatred as those who use animals in research. So anyone who says they are AR, this is what they subscribe to.
cheers arthur.


----------



## Lynne

Ssthisto said:


> Lynne, it's in the Animal Rights faction's interests to show you the WORST photos, no matter how dated, and describe them as the current normal state of affairs.
> 
> That goes for slaughterhouses (They show the 5% of times it goes wrong instead of the 95% of the time it goes right - and slaughter is "ugly" even when it goes the best it can, it's a bloody messy business), circuses (photos of the worst and dirtiest conditions instead of photos of animals that are trained and happy because they have "jobs") and animal testing. They want you to think it's ALL that bad, rather than seeing a true cross-section of what it's actually like.
> 
> A lot of the tests you cite ARE very old tests indeed - thirty or more years in some cases. And the horrific photos are not necessarily the be-all and end-all of what testing is done. Psychological and behavioural studies ALSO come under the remit of "animal testing".


can i ask, what age do you think i am? i passed the teenage stage long ago. i dont believe all i see, but ask or get proof. now am not going to reply on this again, ause you are all getting stupid now. we just have to agree to disagree im afriad. 
over and out from hitler.


----------



## Lynne

bosc888 said:


> sorry lynne but you are definitely a naive idealistic fool with some plainly stupid views,
> nothing more to be said really as you just keep talking rubbish & suggesting things that will never happen.


 
really. watch the space. why do you people think its good to resort to personal insults. usually folk do this when they feel they are being beaten over something.


----------



## Lynne

arthur cooke said:


> I wouldn' want to live in a country that did experiments on humans as a punishment.
> 
> Send them to jail for longer, make prisons a bit tougher, I can go with that.
> 
> The thread started off talking of animal rights, which is more than whether or not animals should be used for research.
> One of their main priorities is to stop pet keeping, ie people like us who keep animals. They would like to see all dogs and cats neutered so that they die out.
> Reptiles cannot be kept as pets, they are wild animals that in captivity, live less than a year. Its impossible to breed them so therefor most in captivity are taken from the wild. This trade in wild caught reptiles is bigger in terms of financial rewards, than the trade in illegal drugs.
> It is the cause of many species being on the endangered list. All reptiles carry salmonella and are a risk to the general public.
> 
> This is their view of us and we are regarded with as much hatred as those who use animals in research. So anyone who says they are AR, this is what they subscribe to.
> cheers arthur.


you are entitled to your opinion, but more and more people think thisway. i think they are now beginning to realise this country has no punishment laws and riminals just keep reoffending. probably why some off the folk replied to this thread, are they scared of needles i wonder? have a nice day folks.


----------



## Ssthisto

Lynne said:


> can i ask, what age do you think i am? i passed the teenage stage long ago. i dont believe all i see, but ask or get proof.


Fair enough - I know of otherwise rational sensible adults who believe all snakes are out to kill them (without any kind of photographic proof), so when there's photographic proof of "how cruel animal experimentation is" I felt it was necessary to explain the CONTEXT of the photographic proof - namely, that people show what they want you to see.

I'm sure that pro-experimentation groups (if they exist) would have plenty of photos and video of experimental animals that are not stressed, kept comfortable and not hurt or afraid of their keepers at all.


----------



## royalpython

Lynne said:


> you are entitled to your opinion, but more and more people think thisway. i think they are now beginning to realise this country has no punishment laws and riminals just keep reoffending. probably why some off the folk replied to this thread, are they scared of needles i wonder? have a nice day folks.



Lynne you are right. A while ago i was talking to two people, and i remember two of them commenting how the jail wasn't that bad, and that they didn't mind going back, and they just re-offended all the time. I don't have to comment about the fact when they were out of jail, they mugged, stole and lived on the dole all the time, with no thought of having a full time job.


----------



## Kami22

Ssthisto said:


> Fair enough - I know of otherwise rational sensible adults who believe all snakes are out to kill them (without any kind of photographic proof), so when there's photographic proof of "how cruel animal experimentation is" I felt it was necessary to explain the CONTEXT of the photographic proof - namely, that people show what they want you to see.
> 
> I'm sure that pro-experimentation groups (if they exist) would have plenty of photos and video of experimental animals that are not stressed, kept comfortable and not hurt or afraid of their keepers at all.


We do exist! hello *waves*. When I get my license ill send in piccys of animals that have a better life than some 'pets' do!


----------



## rakpeterson

glad i left this one when i did:lol2:


----------



## Lynne

royalpython said:


> Lynne you are right. A while ago i was talking to two people, and i remember two of them commenting how the jail wasn't that bad, and that they didn't mind going back, and they just re-offended all the time. I don't have to comment about the fact when they were out of jail, they mugged, stole and lived on the dole all the time, with no thought of having a full time job.


jonny i find it hard to imagine these people think we live in a law abiding state. unfortunately the law favours the criminal. i have seen my friend, she is guv of a scottish prison, come in from work covered in things you wouldnt want to mention. most criminals look on prison as the soft option. they are not allowed mobile phones for instance. i know of one prison where there are at least 4 mobiles doing the rounds between prisoners. another prison up here is having a tunnel built so the prisoners dont get wet in the rain. what a wee sin that they should get wet!!
i also find i hard to imagine these people put blatant murderers, rapists and phaedophiles on the same level as normal human beings!!!! and what really gets me is, the second they think you are getting the better of them, or if they run out of reasons for thinking this way, they start with insults. dont they have the mental abilities to have a good debate without resorting to childish behaviour.
If they think i am naive.....am as naive as i allow them to think. as i said, i left my teenage years behind long ago. but if they are happy in thier own wee world so be it. 
in my opinion, the second someone blatantly commits a murder, goes out and rapes someone, or kidnaps a child..........they lose all basic human rights. they gave thier victims no rights so why should they be accorded any. my opinion, and i am entitled to it.
i wasnt going to reply again on here, but i wanted to acknowledge your post. see you on the 'sane' forum!!!! pmsl


----------



## bosc888

Lynne I agree with you that prison sentences are far too lenient & prisons are made too comfortable but the suggestion that you use certain prisoners as human guinea pigs is totally unrealistic & will never happen.
If you want to debate the pro's & con's of animal research at least come up with a viable alternative that's worth debating, I will admit that I have very little knowledge of drug developement but I would tend to trust a scientists point of view compared to your current suggestion.


----------



## bothrops

Lynne said:


> you know for a fact they dont do you!!!! then you are thicker than you look. oh and i didnt make this post. you will find cat did. maybe you should read things before you write.


OK, maybe all the smilies were OTT and made out I was personally insulting and that wasn't my intention. I was merely trying to point out the farcical nature of your arguement (yes YOUR arguement, not the OP (I thought that was obvious from the fact that I specifically quoted your post in mine? - obviously someone else needs to read things properly!)) in that it was severely outdated and stemmed from exceptionally biased evidence. This was all, sorry if it caused such offence that you had to resort to personal insults (something I've just noticed that you are slating others for?)


As for the 'other' issues...

I would say that todays society is no better or worse than any in the past (Victorian or otherwise). We have always had thiefs, murders and criminals (believe it or not 'paedophiles' are not a modern invention, they were about when we were kids - were we kept indoors and wrapped in cotton wool? No - we were told not to take sweets from 'strangers' and left to our own devices.

We perceive the problems to be bigger than they are due to media spin and that is all! Crime exists, I believe punishments should be stronger but in no way can I condone a society that tortures and abuses others (especially those that are clearly sick) in the name of 'justice'.

All young people are NOT thugs and hooligans, all single older gentlemen are NOT paedophiles, all immigrants are NOT illegal and not ALL criminals get away with it. Society is far from perfect, but it really isn't as bad as the media makes out - hell, they practically CAUSED the reccession! It was only them telling us all that hard times are ahead that caused us to stop spending and caused the self forfilling prophecy.

Cheers

Andy

p.s. how exactly do you know how stupid I look?


----------



## Sarah1340

Lynne, could you provide evidence to back up your claims?

The laws on the treatment of animal test subjects is far stricter than the laws on keeping pets, and the punishments for breaking those laws are severe; loss of license, loss of job, whopping fines and imprisonment are just a few. Someone mentioned earlier about how difficult it is to get permission for animal-related experiments now.

Also as many people have said, it would not be scientific to conduct medical experiments on prisoners as they are not representative of the human population so the quality of the results obtained would not be worth the hassle of the experiment.


----------



## reef

cat1974 said:


> I cannot comment on what you saw in the UK, I only know mink farms and activists here in Ireland.
> 
> Yes I contribute to the purposefu killing of animals to feed my animals. I hate that fact as I have said. However if you examine the real AR ideal you will see that with the prevention of breeding, the spaying and neutering etc., and the gradual progression of veganism, that in the future noe of this would be necessary. I would feed my cats/dogs vegan were it possible in Ireland. It's not.
> 
> You said: "And i was of the impression that using animals for ''entertainment'' was a key aspect of the agenda. What is keeping dogs, cats, reptiles in captivity if its not for your own entertainment (i realise there may be other minor reasons ie companionship, but im sure you get my point)."
> 
> animals for entertainment certainly is a part of the agenda. There you are right 100%. Breeding for cuteness, fluffiness, prettiness etc falls under the morally wrong category from an AR point of view. So does breeding per sey when there are so amny waiting homes in shelters and pounds.
> 
> Rescuing an animal, in AR terms (or indeed in any terms) is an admirable thing to do. Adam (python) couldn't survivie let loose here. Neither could Eve (corn). Neither could Touchlamp (epileptic cat) or Topaz (blind cat).
> 
> AR is about valuing life basically. I value their lives so I do my best to help them live them. All my disableds enjoy life! And I intend to keep it that way. When suffering starts it is time to think of euthanasia but not before. I trust me and my vet for that.
> Cat




would the above red line not be construed as cruelty? Feeding a known carnivore meat free products !!!


----------



## cat1974

*just back...*

....and a lot to catch up on lol! seems the thread has taken on a life of it's own here!

I'll just respond quickly to the vegan dog/cat thing before scrolling back a few pages to see the various comments as I haven't quite figured out what is being said....

Cats are obligate carnivores, 'tis true. The main thing they need that cannot normally be found in non-animal food sources is taurine.... Without that they go blind amongst other things, and eventually die! So in my view, it would certainly be cruel....

However two important points need to be made.... if the cat is allowed outside, it will most likely hunt to supplement the food given by humans. Personally, I let my cats out as I think it unfair to deny them their freedom.

Luckily for the local beasties, mine rarely hunt successfully, and 2 cannot be allowed out for medical reasons, so this is obviously not a solution for all cats! I also think that a responsible cat carer would wish to ensure the cat was getting a balanced diet at home to lessen the hunting aspect in general, and also due to the fact that many domesticated cats are basically crap hunters so they wouldn't necessarily be able to supplement their diet enough to be healthy. (One of mine has a dodgy leg, for example, another left her mother too young and never learned to hunt, another is far too old and stiff, etc etc etc.)

More interestingly, (taurine along with other essential stuff like that!) is now manufactured without killing animals, from whence come the ranges of veggie/vegan cat food currently unavailable in Ireland. I cannot personally vouch for the stuff as, it not be available here, I never had real reason to do much research into it. Should it become available I will certainly look into it by consulting my vet and my scientist family members etc to assess the quality and truth of the health claims. I do know that people have been feeding it to cats for years now and I have never heard any bad stories, not that I'm saying that means much!

Its far far easier with dogs as they are omnivores, like us! Yep, dogs can digest veggies just like we can!

My father who is a zoologist finds the whole area fascinating and if he wasn't at the end of his carreer I could see him looking into creating a veggie or even vegan snake-food substitute! The hard part would be getting the snake to take it of course ha ha! (He is not veggie or vegan btw).

I don't think it's cruel at all so long as the animal is getting adequate nutrition. Cats and dogs are certainly not eating natural food anyway! I have yet to meet the cat who will eat something they don't like. My own are brand specific ffs..... My vet recently gasped at my 2 year old dogs yellowed teeth (Very yellow for his age - I never saw anything like it!) and went into a rant about modern dog food! Jack gets mainly dry food - pedigree chum best by nature (as he has IBS and it seems to be the only thing that doesn't set him off - I reckon its colorants and preservatives in other brands personally) with a bit of tinned stuff of same brand mixed in now and then for a treat. He snacks on cheese and always has chews on the go, but can't eat real bones as they make him vomit for Ireland. The vet reckons bones and raw meat are the only way and that modern dog food destroys teeth and all those fancy chew-teeth-cleaning things are gimmicks!

So no, I don't think sourcing a good quality diet outside of the meat industry is in itself cruel. I have a cat that eats pineapple off pizzas and the dogs love nothing better than chips ffs! :lol2:


----------



## cat1974

bothrops said:


> :lol2::lol2::lol2:!
> 
> Loved this thread - mostly everything has been said (I'm with EssexChondro and Ssthisto) I just have to ask Lynne - had you leapt back to the seventies when you made this post? Even when the AVL chucked the 'smoking dog' and 'crying rabbit' photo's around (and the cat with the electrical device on it's brain) they were grossly out dated!
> 
> The amount of legislation and red tape in order to gain a Home Office license to commence animal testing is unbeliveable. You have to prove beyong any level of doubt that the procedure you intend to use can be done in no other way and that it will cause absolute minimum stress.
> 
> Any proposal you talk of above would be in the bin quicker than you can say 'animal rights activist'!
> 
> 
> Put it this way, when someone at uni wanted to do a behavoural experiment on prey (stickleback) response to a predator (perch), the Home Office stated that they weren't allowed to use real perch (too stressful) and each stickleback was only allowed to be exposed to the (model) perch for a maximum of 5 minutes in any 24hr period and must have suitable rufugia in the tank at all times....
> 
> 
> ...and your telling me you believe they still trap rabbits in stocks and pour perfume in their eyes and force dogs to smoke 40 a day!
> 
> :lol2:ROTFLMFAO!:lol2:
> 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Andy


 
Ok scrolled back and got the gist of it all!

First off I'd like to commend and thank Lynne for sticking up for her beliefs on the vivisection issues raised in the face of such hostility and personal insults. I'm not saying I have never resorted to personal insults out of frustration myself, but I am saying that on the rare occassion it does happen I am extremely ashamed of myself..... As should those concerned be IMHO. There is no call for that in a civilized adult discussion, even if opinions diverge.

Secondly I'd like to reply to the above post (as an exemplar as I cannot reply to all obviously!) as it addresses a huge area of misconception I would like to rebutt.

Cruel and horrific experiments most certainly DO occur on a daily basis. I know people who have spent time in prison exposing them and rescuing the animals!!! (yes ues, I am a "terrorist" by association it would appear.... except that none of us ever actually blow people up or kill people. Al Quaeda wouldn't be very effective by our tactics now would they...????? Think about it!)

What really irks me about many of the posts I have read is the fact that they attack Lynne, saying she is using nonsensical and outdated examples, and attack her also for not providing evidence, when none of the said posts actually provide any evidence either!!!!! Please, argue youor point, but do so honestly and abide by your own rules!!!!!

The stickleback anecdote above is just that - an anecdote. It is not a factual or verifiable piece of information. Although I am happy for the fish involved :lol2:

A verifiable fact is that on wednesday the 6th (last week) in Strasbourg, the European commission voted to change the laws on animal experimentation. After months of debate, MEPS voted. All the amendments were worrying for animals, particularly the one that means that instead of all experimemts requiring prior licencing/authorisation, as is the case in most EU Member States, MEPs have decided that only experiments causing moderate or severe pain, or use of primates, should require authorisation. This means that 4.6 million experiments would take place in Europe each year, without public scrutiny, accountability, or prior authorisation by national authorities.

In March they voted to ban experimantation for cosmetics, and also to ban the import of products tested on animals after that date. AR hailed it as a victory after decades of effort, and we all celebrated. L'Oreal are doing their best to overturn it {as they are French (ie:European - I am actually a Francophile and love France so not being anti-French here lol) I guess, and one of the worst offenders as regards vivisection}.

Victory is was, especially if it lasts, so lets move on to toilet cleaner now! Yep, we also want to stop companies pouring toilet cleaner and other household cleaning products down the throats of dogs simply so people can sell new products and make money! Shame on us!!!!!!!!! This is the next target.....

As regards recent evidence of cruelty,anyone interested can watch the following videos.
SHAC >> HLS Exposed 2008 Primates
YouTube - Huntingdon Life Sciences - Exposed ! dogs

As regards what animal rights "extremists" do....

there's the legal....

YouTube - SHAC City Shakedown: Animal Rights Protest - London, City of London - 27 February 2009

and the illegal....
YouTube - Animal Liberation Front rescue rabbits

and the philosopher...
YouTube - ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.

Apart from that we sign lots of petitions, write lots of letters and visit lots of websites! 

If you can't understand the anti-vivisection ideal fine, that's you. If you are here and posting you obviously have some interest. Take a look! Then look at factual evidence posted by the opposing side (is there any???? Haven't seen it yet so please provide!!!!) and make up your own mind. If you watch this and think it is fine to treat others this way, you are not my kind of person. If you don't even bother to watch and keep spouting abuse, you are not even a person I want to know online!

Peace all
Cat


----------



## Mattsetback

Lynne said:


> it was done through ignorance!! tell that to the people in australia who have had relatives die because someone thought it would be fun to set a fire. tell that to that wee maddy who's parents are still searching for her, tell that to the families of the 10 and upward girls the guy murdered 20 years ago, and he has just been caught.
> *i honestly cant beleive that someone is on here trying to stick up for paedophiles*.


Wow. Just reading through this thread for the first time. That's one of the most ridiculous bits of word twisting I've ever seen.
:bash:


----------



## mahender

this whole thread is a joke. people standing up then backing down. 

human nature can be so pathetic, and yes it all does come down to what is acceptable to an individual.

whther you want to be labelled as a true ARA or a zero tolerance person.

what are the shades of grey.???

evryones shade of grey is different isnt it.

a guy who kill ssomeone for a crime against him because A) his emotions have driven him to seek revenge or b) he is aware of the lack of support the judicial system wil provide. 

where does an eye for an eye stop. 

what if i kill the man who killed my brother who killed his brother accidentally in a car accident. ( for example)

i dont know the specifics of ARA, but activists would, to me entail being active in the thing you are supporting.

terrorism doesnt only include blowing uop and death. chav scrotes on a street corner making the old dear feel scared are terrorists.

kill a chicken to save a cicken?????? what to do.


and where was the motivation for the OP. seems liek an attention thing. nobody asked about your ARA views. 

on a side note. i am living in inhumane conditions under the rule of my iguana, he treats me like s**t and i have to do everything for him without a word of thanks or acknowledgement. he will only breifly give me a tongue flick just to appease me.
are their any activist sticking up for the human against the iguana.


i do love him to bits tho.

*just thought i would contribute a pointless post to this pointless thread.*

to cat.. an ARA who stands outside a research lab protesting scaring the employees of that place are terrorists in their own right. this dude is scared to leave his job which he does to feeed his family.

and Lynne,
how many times did you say you were leaving this thread and not contributing only to have one more thing to say.
if you are so adamant then stop trying to justify your self and justify the point of your beliefs. 
people will listen to sound arrguments not inane rantings.

and before you say i have seen and been the victim of various forms of terror, harrasment, crimes etc.

p.p.s Lynne, the criminal system is a joke and the offenders are given a far too leniant lifestyle rather than rehabilitaion. 

why are the crims not fixing the railroads and doing hard graft for their crimes??

i will end on no point and no conclucion.


----------



## Captainmatt29

All i am saying is this....

You appear to contridict your AR and clearly have no idea on snake feeding if you think it could even live of a suppliment made from vegan materials then you are very wrong because this would be taking away its natural rights to the food it eats in the wild.

So you would be supplimenting the snakes food for your own benefits which again is a massive contradiction in terms.

and dont get me started on the rest


----------



## cat1974

messengermatt said:


> All i am saying is this....
> 
> You appear to contridict your AR and clearly have no idea on snake feeding if you think it could even live of a suppliment made from vegan materials then you are very wrong because this would be taking away its natural rights to the food it eats in the wild.
> 
> So you would be supplimenting the snakes food for your own benefits which again is a massive contradiction in terms.
> 
> and dont get me started on the rest


 
I'm not going to comment on what you have not commented on ie "the rest" for obvious reasons (being that you have not commented so no feedback/argument/logic to comment on...!)

If you read my post properly you will see that I do not purport to feed the snakes under my care vegan food. I merely mentioned that my father thinks this should in theory be biologically possible, but that he doesn't know snakes and doesn't realise what fussy beggars they are!

Yes, feeding rodents is a HUGE dilemma for me, and one which I am still working out the ethical stance upon. The only FACT here is that I have 2 snakes, both VICTIMS of the animal trade industry, both of which need food. And so the cycle continues........ And people like myself are stuck in a moral dilemma which, to us, is certainly not taken lightly....

Incidentally, unless you are a zoologist or can cite peer reviewed research which proves that snakes CANNOT survive on supplemented foods (as other obligate carnivores can and do) your attempt at argument falls flat on its face.

What premis are you basing your argument on? Biology? Rights? nature? Please be clear. You are mixing terminology and fact with ideology and opinion. This does not a clear sustainable argument make..... 

More importantly..... What benefit in the name of all that is sacred, do you think I could personally get from my snakes eating vegan food?????????? Ok if they are vegan they won't eat me..... I see that benefit! Prsoanl benefit?????? PLEASE POINT THIS OUT IF YOU CAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Unless I think either is about to swallow my toe I really fail to see any personal benefit here either way!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## cat1974

mahender said:


> this whole thread is a joke. people standing up then backing down.
> 
> human nature can be so pathetic, and yes it all does come down to what is acceptable to an individual.
> 
> whther you want to be labelled as a true ARA or a zero tolerance person.
> 
> what are the shades of grey.???
> 
> evryones shade of grey is different isnt it.
> 
> a guy who kill ssomeone for a crime against him because A) his emotions have driven him to seek revenge or b) he is aware of the lack of support the judicial system wil provide.
> 
> where does an eye for an eye stop.
> 
> what if i kill the man who killed my brother who killed his brother accidentally in a car accident. ( for example)
> 
> i dont know the specifics of ARA, but activists would, to me entail being active in the thing you are supporting.
> 
> terrorism doesnt only include blowing uop and death. chav scrotes on a street corner making the old dear feel scared are terrorists.
> 
> kill a chicken to save a cicken?????? what to do.
> 
> 
> and where was the motivation for the OP. seems liek an attention thing. nobody asked about your ARA views.
> 
> on a side note. i am living in inhumane conditions under the rule of my iguana, he treats me like s**t and i have to do everything for him without a word of thanks or acknowledgement. he will only breifly give me a tongue flick just to appease me.
> are their any activist sticking up for the human against the iguana.
> 
> 
> i do love him to bits tho.
> 
> *just thought i would contribute a pointless post to this pointless thread.*
> 
> to cat.. an ARA who stands outside a research lab protesting scaring the employees of that place are terrorists in their own right. this dude is scared to leave his job which he does to feeed his family.
> 
> and Lynne,
> how many times did you say you were leaving this thread and not contributing only to have one more thing to say.
> if you are so adamant then stop trying to justify your self and justify the point of your beliefs.
> people will listen to sound arrguments not inane rantings.
> 
> and before you say i have seen and been the victim of various forms of terror, harrasment, crimes etc.
> 
> p.p.s Lynne, the criminal system is a joke and the offenders are given a far too leniant lifestyle rather than rehabilitaion.
> 
> why are the crims not fixing the railroads and doing hard graft for their crimes??
> 
> i will end on no point and no conclucion.


Ah but that is the nature of philosophy mahender!!!!!! Even withing Animal Rights there is no ONE philosophy!!!! The point is to grow as an individual and as a species, not to come to some final response..... Only one dude in history thought he had that and look what happened????

Ok, various issues have come up on this thread, and various opinions have been typed. Is that not a great thing????? The exploration of who we are? what our values are???? Surely debate is a positive thing???? TO CHALLENGE? TO QUESTION? Otherwise we end up back at some sort of final solution, don't we? when the debate stops?????

Seriously, the only difference in this context is that some of us include non-humans in the realm of who is important..... anyone like to come say their non-human is unimportant???? I seriously doubt it....


----------



## cat1974

*can't ignore this sorry.... lol*



messengermatt said:


> taking away its natural rights to the food it eats in the wild.


Really???? What about the other natural rights of an individual???? (perhaps to you they are 'it' but certainly not to me.)

These animals, like all others who have not been so modified by humans so as to not be capable of surviving in the wild, should be returned there where possible, and at least not be bred so the cycle of abuse for PERSONAL BENEFIT of humans does not continue. That is my moral stance and ethically considered opinion and includes ALL animals including HUMAN ones!!!!!

If anyone can provide me with a reasonable argument as to why any individual should be deprived of his or her freedom and/or reproduced in order to continue the cycle of denial of freedom, I will be all ears, believe me....... But folks, it has to apply to all..... not just the species race creed YOU decide you want to keep or breed. Logic me away if you can! (Face it, nobody is ever gonna scare/intimidate us away!!! lol ) 
Cat


----------



## Love_snakes

These threads always end up in random people falling out.


----------



## Meko

this thread only proves one thing..

Animal Rights Activists are a picnic short of a picnic and should be sectioned with a cattle prod.


----------



## bothrops

Hi Cat, welcome back!

I'm glad to see that you have come back as I feel these discussions are highly valuable for all concerned and agree with you that getting people to explore their own morals and ideals is ALWAYS a good thing. So in the interests of discussion...... 



cat1974 said:


> Ok scrolled back and got the gist of it all!
> 
> First off I'd like to commend and thank Lynne for sticking up for her beliefs on the vivisection issues raised in the face of such hostility and personal insults.
> 
> *Interesting that you would 'stick up for Lynne' when you catergorically state that all suffering is bad and yet Lynne would appear to be happy to have human torture camps (provided the inmates had done something wrong first) their was also no shortage of 'personal insults' for her side either... (I beleive I was personally called 'stupid')*
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying I have never resorted to personal insults out of frustration myself, but I am saying that on the rare occassion it does happen I am extremely ashamed of myself..... As should those concerned be IMHO. There is no call for that in a civilized adult discussion, even if opinions diverge.
> 
> *As above.*
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly I'd like to reply to the above post (as an exemplar as I cannot reply to all obviously!) as it addresses a huge area of misconception I would like to rebutt.
> *Glad you pulled me out of the crowd!:2thumb:*
> 
> 
> Cruel and horrific experiments most certainly DO occur on a daily basis. I know people who have spent time in prison exposing them and rescuing the animals!!! (yes ues, I am a "terrorist" by association it would appear.... except that none of us ever actually blow people up or kill people. Al Quaeda wouldn't be very effective by our tactics now would they...????? Think about it!)
> 
> What really irks me about many of the posts I have read is the fact that they attack Lynne, saying she is using nonsensical and outdated examples, and attack her also for not providing evidence, when none of the said posts actually provide any evidence either!!!!! Please, argue youor point, but do so honestly and abide by your own rules!!!!!
> 
> The stickleback anecdote above is just that - an anecdote. It is not a factual or verifiable piece of information. Although I am happy for the fish involved :lol2:
> 
> *I must say I always find it amusing when the players in a debate that are so clearly on the 'extreme' side of a sliding scale (one which I feel I am very much nearer the fence than yourself, albeit on the opposite side of said fence) use the term 'verifiable facts'. Almost all of your arguements rely on the twisting of data or the use of tiny imperfections in the system to try and make out that the whole system is corrupt or 'evil' or just plain wrong. I'll come to the videos below in a second!*
> *My 'fish' story is 100% a factual account ("you would say that", I hear you cry!) but you don't have to take my word for it, all you need to do is contact the Home Office and ask for a copy of their protocol and procedures for animal experimentation.*
> *I actually agree that some horrendous things do happen and that they are abbohorent and indefensible, but that is the tiniest of minorities within a massive system. By performing the completely illegal terrorist actions that you collegues/peers do, you are being 100% counter productive. You close down somewhere here (where there are intensively strict protocols in place) and all you do is send the business to other less well legislated countries and are therefore making the lives of thousands of animals WORSE not better! Also by makng these actions out to be the 'norm' you leave yourself wide open to your own counter arguements of propaganda and non-verifiable evidence.*
> 
> 
> 
> A verifiable fact is that on wednesday the 6th (last week) in Strasbourg, the European commission voted to change the laws on animal experimentation. After months of debate, MEPS voted. All the amendments were worrying for animals, particularly the one that means that instead of all experimemts requiring prior licencing/authorisation, as is the case in most EU Member States, MEPs have decided that only experiments causing moderate or severe pain, or use of primates, should require authorisation.
> *Excellent. This is good news. The use of primates and the performing of experiments that cause pain and suffering SHOULD be highly regulated*
> 
> This means that 4.6 million experiments would take place in Europe each year, without public scrutiny, accountability, or prior authorisation by national authorities.
> 
> *And how many things do you think go on in complete secret due absolutely DIRECTLY to the actions of your peers. Because of the threatening, abusive and illegal vandalism of your peers many organisations have 'gone underground'. The actions of ARA cause the 'good guys' to give up (whats the point, I'm doing me best for these animals and yet being threatened in my own home...etc) and who does that leave? Wwll, it leaves the unscrupulous who will do anything to fill a gap if there is money to be made - you guys just make it much easier for them. And you think you are making the animals lives better? I think the opposite.*
> *The trouble is many ARA only think in terms of the individual (if I save this bunny I will be doing good) when the reality is that by saving the one you condonce the deaths of many others. For example, the one you save is involved in an experiment, you 'save; it. That removes it from the data, another animal has to take it's place, only this time the lab has to do it twice, just incase one lot gets 'lost' again. Also instead of doing it in Britain where the red tape is expensive and time consuming, lets send it overseas where its cheaper and easier (who cares if more animals suffer? The ARA's certainly didn't. *
> 
> In March they voted to ban experimantation for cosmetics, and also to ban the import of products tested on animals after that date.
> 
> *This is a victory for all animal welfarists, not one person on here has condoned the use of animals for cosmetic experimentation.*
> 
> AR hailed it as a victory after decades of effort, and we all celebrated. L'Oreal are doing their best to overturn it {as they are French (ie:European - I am actually a Francophile and love France so not being anti-French here lol) I guess, and one of the worst offenders as regards vivisection}.
> 
> Victory is was, especially if it lasts, so lets move on to toilet cleaner now! Yep, we also want to stop companies pouring toilet cleaner and other household cleaning products down the throats of dogs simply so people can sell new products and make money!
> *Again, no-one thinks this is valuable or nessecary and is clearly NOT what I am argueing 'for'*
> 
> Shame on us!!!!!!!!! This is the next target..... *by campaigning peacefully yet passionately for a change in the law to make this illegal, fine. By bullying, threatening and abusing people trying to earn a living - disgusting, abhorent and incredibly arrogant and hypocritical*
> 
> 
> 
> As regards recent evidence of cruelty,anyone interested can watch the following videos.
> SHAC >> HLS Exposed 2008 Primates -* no evidence of 'recent cruelty' the small cages could easily be travel crates that the animals have been placed in ready for shipping and the other cages are not filmed so we have to awwume that they didn't show anything cruel enough to warrant a place in an extremist groups propaganda video. I'm not saying cruel things don't happen, I'm saying be careful of the motives of the people who are showing you the 'evidence' (and ALWAYS question what they are NOT showing.*
> YouTube - Huntingdon Life Sciences - Exposed ! dogs
> 
> *1) not recent - over 10 years old*
> *2) technicians shown prosecuted (and rightly so - the behaviour was inexcusable and indefensable)*
> *3) direct action against the employees is counter productive as you will only put off the sorts of people you would want there and incourage 'muppets' like shown in the video (I use muppets as this is a public forum, insert as strong a term as you feel fit*
> 
> As regards what animal rights "extremists" do....
> 
> there's the legal....
> 
> YouTube - SHAC City Shakedown: Animal Rights Protest - London, City of London - 27 February 2009
> 
> and the illegal....
> YouTube - Animal Liberation Front rescue rabbits
> 
> and the philosopher...
> YouTube - ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.
> 
> Apart from that we sign lots of petitions, write lots of letters and visit lots of websites!
> 
> If you can't understand the anti-vivisection ideal fine, that's you. If you are here and posting you obviously have some interest. Take a look! Then look at factual evidence posted by the opposing side (is there any???? Haven't seen it yet so please provide!!!!) and make up your own mind. If you watch this and think it is fine to treat others this way, you are not my kind of person. If you don't even bother to watch and keep spouting abuse, you are not even a person I want to know online!
> 
> *No abuse here, I do not find it pleasant watching the dogs in the video being shook - I am happy that the technicians were prosecuted and wnder why you think for a second that these are the 'normal' happenings. They appear to be highly isolated incidents that have been dealt with.*
> 
> 
> Peace all
> Cat





cat1974 said:


> Really???? What about the other natural rights of an individual???? (perhaps to you they are 'it' but certainly not to me.)
> 
> These animals, like all others who have not been so modified by humans so as to not be capable of surviving in the wild, should be returned there where possible, and at least not be bred so the cycle of abuse for PERSONAL BENEFIT of humans does not continue. That is my moral stance and ethically considered opinion and includes ALL animals including HUMAN ones!!!!!
> 
> If anyone can provide me with a reasonable argument as to why any individual should be deprived of his or her freedom and/or reproduced in order to continue the cycle of denial of freedom, I will be all ears, believe me....... But folks, it has to apply to all..... not just the species race creed YOU decide you want to keep or breed. Logic me away if you can! (Face it, nobody is ever gonna scare/intimidate us away!!! lol )
> Cat


 
*BRB - gotta do a few jobs, but I'll be back later to have a stab at a counter!*


*Speak soon*

*Andy*


----------



## Pete Q

cat1974 said:


> ....and a lot to catch up on lol! seems the thread has taken on a life of it's own here!
> 
> I'll just respond quickly to the vegan dog/cat thing before scrolling back a few pages to see the various comments as I haven't quite figured out what is being said....
> 
> Cats are obligate carnivores, 'tis true. The main thing they need that cannot normally be found in non-animal food sources is taurine.... Without that they go blind amongst other things, and eventually die! So in my view, it would certainly be cruel....
> 
> However two important points need to be made.... if the cat is allowed outside, it will most likely hunt to supplement the food given by humans. Personally, I let my cats out as I think it unfair to deny them their freedom.
> 
> Luckily for the local beasties, mine rarely hunt successfully, and 2 cannot be allowed out for medical reasons, so this is obviously not a solution for all cats! I also think that a responsible cat carer would wish to ensure the cat was getting a balanced diet at home to lessen the hunting aspect in general, and also due to the fact that many domesticated cats are basically crap hunters so they wouldn't necessarily be able to supplement their diet enough to be healthy. (One of mine has a dodgy leg, for example, another left her mother too young and never learned to hunt, another is far too old and stiff, etc etc etc.)
> 
> More interestingly, (taurine along with other essential stuff like that!) is now manufactured without killing animals, from whence come the ranges of veggie/vegan cat food currently unavailable in Ireland. I cannot personally vouch for the stuff as, it not be available here, I never had real reason to do much research into it. Should it become available I will certainly look into it by consulting my vet and my scientist family members etc to assess the quality and truth of the health claims. I do know that people have been feeding it to cats for years now and I have never heard any bad stories, not that I'm saying that means much!
> 
> Its far far easier with dogs as they are omnivores, like us! Yep, dogs can digest veggies just like we can!
> 
> My father who is a zoologist finds the whole area fascinating and if he wasn't at the end of his carreer I could see him looking into creating a veggie or even vegan snake-food substitute! The hard part would be getting the snake to take it of course ha ha! (He is not veggie or vegan btw).
> 
> I don't think it's cruel at all so long as the animal is getting adequate nutrition. Cats and dogs are certainly not eating natural food anyway! I have yet to meet the cat who will eat something they don't like. My own are brand specific ffs..... My vet recently gasped at my 2 year old dogs yellowed teeth (Very yellow for his age - I never saw anything like it!) and went into a rant about modern dog food! Jack gets mainly dry food - pedigree chum best by nature (as he has IBS and it seems to be the only thing that doesn't set him off - I reckon its colorants and preservatives in other brands personally) with a bit of tinned stuff of same brand mixed in now and then for a treat. He snacks on cheese and always has chews on the go, but can't eat real bones as they make him vomit for Ireland. The vet reckons bones and raw meat are the only way and that modern dog food destroys teeth and all those fancy chew-teeth-cleaning things are gimmicks!
> 
> So no, I don't think sourcing a good quality diet outside of the meat industry is in itself cruel. I have a cat that eats pineapple off pizzas and the dogs love nothing better than chips ffs! :lol2:


I think I might of said this before, I respect your honesty and share your love of animals. But I'm not sure you fully understand what it is to be classed as AR. They don't agree with keeping reptiles, only have cats or dogs if they are rescues, and don't call them " it " On the subject of cats hunting, all cats will hunt and kill, they might have different amounts of success, but they will kill. ARA I'm sorry to say would also hate your father to, they hate zoos, prisons in their eyes, same reason they don't live reptile keepers.


----------



## Pete Q

cat1974 said:


> Really???? What about the other natural rights of an individual???? (perhaps to you they are 'it' but certainly not to me.)
> 
> These animals, like all others who have not been so modified by humans so as to not be capable of surviving in the wild, should be returned there where possible, and at least not be bred so the cycle of abuse for PERSONAL BENEFIT of humans does not continue. That is my moral stance and ethically considered opinion and includes ALL animals including HUMAN ones!!!!!
> 
> If anyone can provide me with a reasonable argument as to why any individual should be deprived of his or her freedom and/or reproduced in order to continue the cycle of denial of freedom, I will be all ears, believe me....... But folks, it has to apply to all..... not just the species race creed YOU decide you want to keep or breed. Logic me away if you can! (Face it, nobody is ever gonna scare/intimidate us away!!! lol )
> Cat


 Yes I can, for the same reason cats are kept indoors by cat owners, for their safety and they would kill other animals, or be killed.
As far as reproduction, they should have that right shouldn't they ?


----------



## bothrops

cat1974 said:


> Really???? What about the other natural rights of an individual???? (perhaps to you they are 'it' but certainly not to me.)
> 
> These animals, like all others who have not been so modified by humans so as to not be capable of surviving in the wild, should be returned there where possible, and at least not be bred so the cycle of abuse for PERSONAL BENEFIT of humans does not continue. That is my moral stance and ethically considered opinion and includes ALL animals including HUMAN ones!!!!!
> 
> If anyone can provide me with a reasonable argument as to why any individual should be deprived of his or her freedom and/or reproduced in order to continue the cycle of denial of freedom, I will be all ears, believe me....... But folks, it has to apply to all..... not just the species race creed YOU decide you want to keep or breed. Logic me away if you can! (Face it, nobody is ever gonna scare/intimidate us away!!! lol )
> Cat


OK

You are keeping your animals for entirely selfish reasons. You may see it as 'rescueing them from the abboherences of the pet keeping world', but you get massive pleasure from those animals, you get companionship, a feeling of 'self worth' looking after there lives and (with your snakes) an ability to indulge your facination of an amazing species in the comfort of your own home. Thats absolutely fine, but dont come claiming that WE are 'selfish' to keep them, just because we didn't rescue them (many would argue that keeping an animal alive that has painful disabilities or 'can't go outside for health reasons' ENTIRELY selfish. Surely the least selfish thing to do would to have the animal PTS even if it causes you distress. I personalyl feel you are using the 'rescue' card to justify the apparent juxtaposition between your anti captive stance and your personal love of your captive animals that inevitably comes with a slightly selfish overtones.

As for the 'better of in the wild' thing. I would highly question your logic. You claim to be anti pain and suffering and yet almost ALL wild animals go through tremendous pain and suffering every day. Almost all captive animals have no pain, no suffering. They are fed well, kept in ideal conditions (not too hot, not too cold, correct humidity etc), the are free from disease and the threat of predation. Sounds pretty cushy to me. A wild animal is exposed to a miriad of stress, pain and suffering every day and most will die either very painfully either quickly (via the hands of a predator or a more dominant conspecific) or very slowly (starvation, cold, disease, infection).

And this is often justified by "that's ok 'cos thats natural, captivity isn't, it denies 'freedom'".
The problem here is an asumption of an understanding of the notion of 'freedom'. Excluding domestic mammals (that have by your own admission, been bred to be so far removed from there wild counter parts that they could never 'go back' and are argueably almost completely behaviourally adjusted to a captive lifestyle anyway) lets looks at our hobby.
Snakes, lizards and invertebrates. Even a very basic knowledge of simple biology will show that these animal groups have very tiny cerebrums. This is the area of the brain that deals with logic, problem solving and higher level thinking such as emotion and creativity. It is also the area that gives us a sense of 'self'.
My arguement (logical and based on basic factual biology and most likely explaination) is that these animals have absolutely no comprehension of 'freedom'. They do not have the processing power in their brains to deal with any sort of idea that they are 'being denied' anything. They work entirely on 'am I too hot, am I too cold, am I hungry, can I eat it, will it eat me' thought processes and do not sit in their vivariums contemplating what it would be like if they were 'back in the wild'. We cater for their every need and they don't think of us as their 'carers' or 'part of the pack' but as another part of their world that (most of the time) is nothing to them, occasionally a bit scary (rattle tail etc) and sometimes just a pink warm tree that causes no threat.


Do i think animals feel pain? Absolutely
Do I think animals become stressed? Of Course
Do I think it is right for a human to cause pain and stress to any other living thing (including humans)? Much like yourself Cat, Absolutely not (unlke Lynne, who you were championing earlier)
Do I think that animals are better off in the wild than being looked after by humans? No, although I love to see animals in the wild, and would love it if many animals were left well alone, but I don't think it's as black and white as 'captivity=bad, wild = good'
Do I think that ARA actually help the animals? most of the time no, although raising awareness is good, their methods are at best annoying, mostly highly questionable and very often counter productive, and almost always based on propaganda and an inability to see the 'bigger picture'. 

I admire your tenacity, I admire your love of and facination with all living things (that is something we do have in common) but I fail to see how the extremism of ARs helps animals or benefits mankind or the planet. I also feel that some of your arguements are a little confused and dare I say it, weak and illogical and very occasioanlly hypocritical.
That said, I too have noticed whilst thinking through your posts and composing my own that there are many grey areas for me too, and I thank you for 'forcing' me to confront these conflicts in my own idealogies.

: victory:

Cheers

Andy


----------



## Pete Q

bothrops said:


> OK
> 
> You are keeping your animals for entirely selfish reasons. You may see it as 'rescueing them from the abboherences of the pet keeping world', but you get massive pleasure from those animals, you get companionship, a feeling of 'self worth' looking after there lives and (with your snakes) an ability to indulge your facination of an amazing species in the comfort of your own home. Thats absolutely fine, but dont come claiming that WE are 'selfish' to keep them, just because we didn't rescue them (many would argue that keeping an animal alive that has painful disabilities or 'can't go outside for health reasons' ENTIRELY selfish. Surely the least selfish thing to do would to have the animal PTS even if it causes you distress. I personalyl feel you are using the 'rescue' card to justify the apparent juxtaposition between your anti captive stance and your personal love of your captive animals that inevitably comes with a slightly selfish overtones.
> 
> As for the 'better of in the wild' thing. I would highly question your logic. You claim to be anti pain and suffering and yet almost ALL wild animals go through tremendous pain and suffering every day. Almost all captive animals have no pain, no suffering. They are fed well, kept in ideal conditions (not too hot, not too cold, correct humidity etc), the are free from disease and the threat of predation. Sounds pretty cushy to me. A wild animal is exposed to a miriad of stress, pain and suffering every day and most will die either very painfully either quickly (via the hands of a predator or a more dominant conspecific) or very slowly (starvation, cold, disease, infection).
> 
> And this is often justified by "that's ok 'cos thats natural, captivity isn't, it denies 'freedom'".
> The problem here is an asumption of an understanding of the notion of 'freedom'. Excluding domestic mammals (that have by your own admission, been bred to be so far removed from there wild counter parts that they could never 'go back' and are argueably almost completely behaviourally adjusted to a captive lifestyle anyway) lets looks at our hobby.
> Snakes, lizards and invertebrates. Even a very basic knowledge of simple biology will show that these animal groups have very tiny cerebrums. This is the area of the brain that deals with logic, problem solving and higher level thinking such as emotion and creativity. It is also the area that gives us a sense of 'self'.
> My arguement (logical and based on basic factual biology and most likely explaination) is that these animals have absolutely no comprehension of 'freedom'. They do not have the processing power in their brains to deal with any sort of idea that they are 'being denied' anything. They work entirely on 'am I too hot, am I too cold, am I hungry, can I eat it, will it eat me' thought processes and do not sit in their vivariums contemplating what it would be like if they were 'back in the wild'. We cater for their every need and they don't think of us as their 'carers' or 'part of the pack' but as another part of their world that (most of the time) is nothing to them, occasionally a bit scary (rattle tail etc) and sometimes just a pink warm tree that causes no threat.
> 
> 
> Do i think animals feel pain? Absolutely
> Do I think animals become stressed? Of Course
> Do I think it is right for a human to cause pain and stress to any other living thing (including humans)? Much like yourself Cat, Absolutely not (unlke Lynne, who you were championing earlier)
> Do I think that animals are better off in the wild than being looked after by humans? No, although I love to see animals in the wild, and would love it if many animals were left well alone, but I don't think it's as black and white as 'captivity=bad, wild = good'
> Do I think that ARA actually help the animals? most of the time no, although raising awareness is good, their methods are at best annoying, mostly highly questionable and very often counter productive, and almost always based on propaganda and an inability to see the 'bigger picture'.
> 
> I admire your tenacity, I admire your love of and facination with all living things (that is something we do have in common) but I fail to see how the extremism of ARs helps animals or benefits mankind or the planet. I also feel that some of your arguements are a little confused and dare I say it, weak and illogical and very occasioanlly hypocritical.
> That said, I too have noticed whilst thinking through your posts and composing my own that there are many grey areas for me too, and I thank you for 'forcing' me to confront these conflicts in my own idealogies.
> 
> : victory:
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Andy


Good post Andy, I second all your opinions.


----------



## sparkle

I have often wondered about the freedom debate


can i ask if animals have no concept of feedom.. what makes them depressed as such in captivity such as the polar bear at edinburgh zoo.. 

is it the lack of companionship of their own kind and high levels of stress if their captive husbandry is apalling..

also.. some captive animals.. lions/ orangutangs etc do seem to have the desire to esacape and explore and often watch keepers to see how they can best find routes of escape.. I understand the reptilian brain and the drive to escape... if in tanks etc...allbeit this may not be freedom related you can see why ARA who are humans would personify these animals..


I havent studied this area enough to answer my own query.. thanks in advance to anyone who can : victory:


----------



## Pete Q

Animals in the wild lead lives of compulsion and necessity within an
unforgiving social hierarchy in an environment where the supply of fear
is high and the supply of food low and where territory must constantly
be defended and parasites forever endured. What is the meaning of
freedom in such a context? Animals in the wild are, in practice, free
neither in space nor in time, nor in their personal relations. In
theory—that is, as a simple physical possibility—an animal could pick up
and go, flaunting all the social conventions and boundaries proper to
its species. But such an event is less likely to happen than for a
member of our own species, say a shopkeeper with all the usual ties—to
family, to friends, to society—to drop everything and walk away from his
life with only the spare change in his pockets and the clothes on his
frame. If a man, boldest and most intelligent of creatures, won't wander
from place to place, a stranger to all, beholden to none, why would an
animal, which is by temperament far more conservative? For that is what
animals are, conservative, one might even say reactionary. The smallest
changes can upset them. They want things to be just so, day after day,
month after month. Surprises are highly disagreeable to them. You see
this in their spatial relations. An animal inhabits its space, whether
kept as a pet or in the wild, in the same way chess pieces move about a
chessboard—significantly. There is no more happenstance, no more
"freedom", involved in the whereabouts of a lizard or a bear or a deer
than in the location of a knight on a chessboard. Both speak of pattern
and purpose. In the wild, animals stick to the same paths for the same
pressing reasons, season after season. In a zoo, if an animal is not in
its normal place in its regular posture at the usual hour, it means
something. It may be the reflection of nothing more than a minor change
in the environment. A coiled hose left out by a keeper has made a
menacing impression. A puddle has formed that bothers the animal. A
ladder is making a shadow. But it could mean something more. At its
worst, it could be that most dreaded thing to a zoo director: a symptom,
a herald of trouble to come, a reason to inspect the dung, to
cross-examine the keeper, to summon the vet. All this because a stork is
not standing where it usually stands!


----------



## bothrops

sparkle said:


> I have often wondered about the freedom debate
> 
> 
> can i ask if animals have no concept of feedom.. what makes them depressed as such in captivity such as the polar bear at edinburgh zoo..
> 
> is it the lack of companionship of their own kind and high levels of stress if their captive husbandry is apalling..
> 
> also.. some captive animals.. lions/ orangutangs etc do seem to have the desire to esacape and explore and often watch keepers to see how they can best find routes of escape.. I understand the reptilian brain and the drive to escape... if in tanks etc...allbeit this may not be freedom related you can see why ARA who are humans would personify these animals..
> 
> 
> I havent studied this area enough to answer my own query.. thanks in advance to anyone who can : victory:


Hi Sparkle. 

You will notice I explicitly excluded mammals and particularly 'higher' mammals from my previous post. Many of the higher animals are different completely. I still don't feel they can specifically comprehend 'freedom' but they are certainly aware of 'containment' and will always seek to explore. The measure of good husbandry is to give the animals massive amounts of mental stimulation and entertainment. It'll never be perfect but when we get to zoo's and safari parks, we are in a whole different playing field to pets (i.e. capuchin and polar bears do not make good pets and require a great deal of expert husbandry if you are to keep them in captivity) but zoo's are a whole new discussion and much as I would love to debate the value of zoos (I work in (an albeit small) one, and lecture in animal care/management so have a 'working knowledge' of captive exotics) I think we should keep this a little more 'on topic' (if there is such a thing on a thread such as this!)

Cheers

Andy


----------



## sparkle

bothrops said:


> Hi Sparkle.
> 
> You will notice I explicitly excluded mammals and particularly 'higher' mammals from my previous post. Many of the higher animals are different completely. I still don't feel they can specifically comprehend 'freedom' but they are certainly aware of 'containment' and will always seek to explore. The measure of good husbandry is to give the animals massive amounts of mental stimulation and entertainment. It'll never be perfect but when we get to zoo's and safari parks, we are in a whole different playing field to pets (i.e. capuchin and polar bears do not make good pets and require a great deal of expert husbandry if you are to keep them in captivity) but zoo's are a whole new discussion and much as I would love to debate the value of zoos (I work in (an albeit small) one, and lecture in animal care/management so have a 'working knowledge' of captive exotics) I think we should keep this a little more 'on topic' (if there is such a thing on a thread such as this!)
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Andy


 
I thought I had managed fairly well to keep on topic blush after reading some of the replies earlier in the thread 


I think the freedom concept is an interesting one.. and perhaps under researched.. thank-you for your reply : victory:


----------



## Pete Q

Don't we say, "There's no place like home"? That's certainly what
animals feel. Animals are territorial. That is the key to their minds.
Only a familiar territory will allow them to fulfill the two relentless
imperatives of the wild: the avoidance of enemies and the getting of
food and water. A biologically sound zoo enclosure—whether cage, pit,
moated island, corral, terrarium, aviary or aquarium—is just another
territory, peculiar only in its size and in its proximity to human
territory. That it is so much smaller than what it would be in nature
stands to reason. Territories in the wild are large not as a matter of
taste but of necessity. In a zoo, we do for animals what we have done
for ourselves with houses: we bring together in a small space what in
the wild is spread out. Whereas before for us the cave was here, the
river over there, the hunting grounds a mile that way, the lookout next
to it, the berries somewhere else—all of them infested with lions,
snakes, ants, leeches and poison ivy—now the river flows through taps at
hand's reach and we can wash next to where we sleep, we can eat where we
have cooked, and we can surround the whole with a protective wall and
keep it clean and warm. A house is a compressed territory where our
basic needs can be fulfilled close by and safely. A sound zoo enclosure
is the equivalent for an animal (with the noteworthy absence of a
fireplace or the like, present in every human habitation). Finding
within it all the places it needs—a lookout, a place for resting, for
eating and drinking, for bathing, for grooming, etc.—and finding that
there is no need to go hunting, food appearing six days a week, an
animal will take possession of its zoo space in the same way it would
lay claim to a new space in the wild, exploring it and marking it out in
the normal ways of its species, with sprays of urine perhaps. Once this
moving-in ritual is done and the animal has settled, it will not feel
like a nervous tenant, and even less like a prisoner, but rather like a
landholder, and it will behave in the same way within its enclosure as
it would in its territory in the wild, including defending it tooth and
nail should it be invaded. Such an enclosure is subjectively neither
better nor worse for an animal than its condition in the wild; so long
as it fulfills the animal's needs, a territory, natural or constructed,
simply is, without judgment, a given, like the spots on a leopard. One
might even argue that if an animal could choose with intelligence, it
would opt for living in a zoo, since the major difference between a zoo
and the wild is the absence of parasites and enemies and the abundance
of food in the first, and their respective abundance and scarcity in the
second. Think about it yourself. Would you rather be put up at the Ritz
with free room service and unlimited access to a doctor or be homeless
without a soul to care for you? But animals are incapable of such
discernment. Within the limits of their nature, they make do with what
they have.


----------



## cat1974

I don't think you have understood.... I AM an AR activist. Please do not tell me what I am! or what I believe! No offfence but as a member of the movement, I think I might know a few more of us than you do? How many of us have you chatted with recently????


----------



## SiUK

cat1974 said:


> I don't think you have understood.... I AM an AR activist. Please do not tell me what I am! or what I believe! No offfence but as a member of the movement, I think I might know a few more of us than you do? How many of us have you chatted with recently????


id say your a part timer, you pick and choose with what you want, the line is blurred for you


----------



## VoodooWitchDoctor

Animal rights activists, stole the bones of an innocent dead woman, and sent letter bombs to the forensic science services!

I love animals, but a fanatic is a fanatic......Reigious, or otherwise!

There are too many sickos in this world for my liking!


----------



## cat1974

To the person who said I basically rescued to fulfill some sick personal desire..... The only reason I have a snake is because I got a call to take him. It was not a thing I had ever considered doing in my life! But I realised he was desperate and that I had the finances and responsibility to care for him. Of course he is fascinating! So are the cats I rescue. Your point has no logic.

My taking on rescues does not contribute to suffering of the rescues concerned, but to their benefit. I have admitted the huge huge moral dilemma involved with feeding my rescues. I have told this room how torn I am and how I cannot see a positive outcome. I have admitted my ethical inconsistencies.

Has ONE of you admitted theirs??? No
Has ONE of you addressed any logical argument with anything other than puerile attempts at wit???? No
Has ONE of you even begun to examine your own ethics????? Most certainly a resounding YES!!!! Job well done as far as I am concerned! All I am asking is that people think after all!!!! (Obviously too difficult for some but you can't fight nature I guess! lol )


----------



## VoodooWitchDoctor

Do you belong to the A.L.F?

If so you should go and hang you head in shame you bloody sicko!

You lot make me sick!

A person who cares for animals, and wishes to take on rescue animals, I have the up most repect for!

But you lot have lost the bloody plot, with your terrorist, fanatical ways!

Nutters!

If your not then just ignore all that!:whistling2:


----------



## JustJordan

hey cant be botherd to read so many pages so im going to give you my thoughts lol
i am a welfarist,

i believe that animals in captivity can be happy, and maybe possibly happer than in the wild... but that is just a thought and not a ful belief.

i dont like to see WC reps or what ever, and would like no more taken from the wild if there is pleanty CB.
then i agrue, where did you reps come from in the 1st place? and i may even have WC frogs...not sure tho.

i hate the idea of animal testing but its got to happen until somthing else is thought up. i my self would of died many times, drugs saved me.
my mother and all my aunts suffer from cancer... drugs saved their lives... defeted the cancer in cases.
my fiancee had many serious problems...drugs saves his life
thanks to him being there for me i got through things that i couldnt bare
my grandma is dying from cancer and drugs are helping her.

as for testing prisoners... my brother is a criminal and to this day serving a short stint. i would hate to see any tests done to him. i love him even though he is a a*se. 
at the end of the day they may have done wrong, and they should of thought of that i know... but what about their families?
do i deserve to suffer pain in seein the closest person in my family suffer?
i know it will kill me inside

yet i hate animal testing... cant stand it and no they were born into it by mistake not their choice... they didnt do anything wrong but put behinde bars non the less.... dodgy subject isnt it


----------



## SiUK

VoodooWitchDoctor said:


> Do you belong to the A.L.F?
> 
> If so you should go and hang you head in shame you bloody sicko!
> 
> You lot make me sick!
> 
> A person who cares for animals, and wishes to take on rescue animals, I have the up most repect for!
> 
> But you lot have lost the bloody plot, with your terrorist, fanatical ways!
> 
> Nutters!
> 
> If your not then just ignore all that!:whistling2:


 
In fairness not all animal rights are extremist only a small percentage.


----------



## VoodooWitchDoctor

SiUK said:


> In fairness not all animal rights are extremist only a small percentage.



A fair comment SiUK!

It just makes my blood boil when those two stories flash back in my brain!

: victory:

Matt


----------



## blood and guts

So many people get the hole activist vs welfare side wrong, but one thing that amazes me is how a activist keeps "rescues" but loves them as much as those who bought them as "pets".

Id even say the term "rescue" is so over used these days and in some cases its a case of out of the frying pan and into the fire for the animal in question.


----------



## *Mac

Meko said:


> this thread only proves one thing..
> 
> Animal Rights Activists are a picnic short of a picnic and should be sectioned with a cattle prod.



Marry me?


----------



## bothrops

cat1974 said:


> To the person who said I basically rescued to fulfill some sick personal desire..... The only reason I have a snake is because I got a call to take him. It was not a thing I had ever considered doing in my life! But I realised he was desperate and that I had the finances and responsibility to care for him. Of course he is fascinating! So are the cats I rescue. Your point has no logic.
> 
> My taking on rescues does not contribute to suffering of the rescues concerned, but to their benefit. I have admitted the huge huge moral dilemma involved with feeding my rescues. I have told this room how torn I am and how I cannot see a positive outcome. I have admitted my ethical inconsistencies.
> 
> Has ONE of you admitted theirs??? No
> Has ONE of you addressed any logical argument with anything other than puerile attempts at wit???? No
> Has ONE of you even begun to examine your own ethics????? Most certainly a resounding YES!!!! Job well done as far as I am concerned! All I am asking is that people think after all!!!! (Obviously too difficult for some but you can't fight nature I guess! lol )


 
Might I mention 'true colours' at this point?

You originally came across as a person that passionately cared about animals and had some strong views about the way humans treat them. You also came across as someone who was perfectly prepared to rationally discuss the opposing views of these very emotive subjects, hence why I engaged you in discussion of the points.

This post you have now made has started to make me belive you are not quite as 'open to discussion' as you claim to be.

I have put forward a large number of 'logical' arguements, I have on a number of occasions admitted a few logical/moral inconsistencies I have. 

You have, however, chosen to ignore them in favour of the few less well thought out arguements (as if you thought you wouldn't get a bit of heckling). It is clear that you started this thread to get a rise and are now focusing on those that rose, rather than truely, logically and sensibly discussing the issues. I have raised many points and spent alot of time and effort (and insight into my own views) to compose thoughtful (and HIGHLY logical) counters to your 'arguements' and find it personally insulting that you can dismiss my efforts with such an insulting (and frankly lazy) post that shows you clearly don't have any interest in truely debating the issues and are in fact desperate to turn this into the insult fest you want it to be in order that you can artificially claim the moral victory.


I do not think for a second that your response to my point about your selfish motives in keeping animals has been countered in anyway (although in the first sentence you intentionally exaggerated the point I was making in order to make it appear that I was being offensive). Why should you feel that the pleasure you get from your animals is any more 'righteous' and less 'selfish' because your animals came previously from poor homes? I could claim that all my animals are 'rescued' because they get better care with me than they would at any of their previous homes (I don't believe that for a second BTW) if it helped my to deal with the juxtaposition and hypocrisy of the 'no-one else should have any pets, but I can....' arguement. You keep animals (and get pleasure from the relationship you have) yet still have the ordacity to treat us with contempt for daring to have similiar relationships with the animals we so deeply care for.

Furthermore, I am not expecting a reply to this for about a month as you are obviously just 'popping back' every now and again, skim reading to pick out a few insults and then posting misquotes or exagerations in order to get some more rises and leaving.

This post has severely reduced my original respect for you, and I feel that the mature and sensible debate about the way humans treat, interact with and keep animals is unfortunately going to divebomb into an insult fest, and with that previous post (bearing in mind the environment that you chose to air you views) you only have yourself to blame (although I daresay in your head it will be us at fault because clearly we are evil and you are the Messiah.)

I'm out.


Regards

Andy


----------



## Pliskens_Chains

wow!!!!
this thread has been interesting to follow.

Animal rights is always going to be something of a disagreement.
either they have rights or they dont.
either they are entitiled to living a happy and full life, free of pain and dignity or they dont.
they either have the right to have death come painlessly or they will die in agony.

The simple fact is animals have rights... as long as it does not impair a humans right.... a right to have the food they want, CHEAP... the right to wear the matierial they WANT.... the right to have the medicine they NEED.
call me controversial, but the nazi reference was about righ in my opinion, they did use humans for experimentation and gained a lot of useful facts (i will refind the sources if anyone really wants them, but they are on a previous thread/poll 'worst dictator' i think it was). You can get a lot more reliable information from a human where medicine is concerned than you can from an animal...... but then you tresspass on HUMAN RIGHTS.

i think some of the extreme ARA are a bit F***ed up tbh, they will release animals without a thought of whether they are carrying a disease that will spread to the nearest animal population, or they will release an species that is not indiginous to go and wipe out native wildlife, or die of starvation.
genuine ARA will draw attention to the animals welfare through perfectly legal means and they will blockade/picket testing labs. They will not put in danger other animals .

however my rambling is over for the night i think..... maybe not, you never know.


----------



## ghostcornsnake

i hate animal rights activists they dont no wat the hell there talking about 

your terorists as someone else on here said there right u are

and hearing that ar killed dogs because they "were better of dead"

then there hipercrits and u are to cat ar kill animals and there has been cases where the ar have electrocuted people to death in "protest" 

ar are teroists fact.


----------



## sparkle

blood and guts said:


> So many people get the hole activist vs welfare side wrong, but one thing that amazes me is how a activist keeps "rescues" but loves them as much as those who bought them as "pets".
> 
> Id even say the term "rescue" is so over used these days and in some cases its a case of out of the frying pan and into the fire for the animal in question.


 totally agree..

I am sick of seeing people rescuing animals when its nothing of the sort.. they simply move the animal from one place to the next .. pretending if they love it it will get better somehow.. thats about thier own desires and needs..rescues need proper vet care , time and a lot of commitment and the ability to PAY for treatment.. possibly operations and meds too.. and the sense to know when enough is enough and consider euthanasia.. if you are unable to provide comprehensive care dont do it..

frying pan into the fire.. well said


----------



## ramboto2

Should Animal Rights be included in the Constitution?

Waddya think?

My teacher in Political Science forced my classmate to write about the topic.


----------

