ou are conflating cause and reaction. Also just because the overall trends are probably negative doesn't mean we should give up on steps to improve animal welfare.
Any superficial analysis of animal welfare legislation policy clearly indicates that animal welfare has not increased in any measurable way nor has it improved the life of any animal in any appreciable way. By its own standards, animal welfare is a failure. Rather than making the lives of animals more pleasant, animal welfare has created the most elaborate and pervasive system of misery and death ever created. Consider the following analogy: sure it is better to just be raped and murdered instead of tortured, raped and murdered - but even under the "rape welfare," you're still being raped and murdered. This is unacceptable.
So what interim strategy is best in order to minimize harm to animals?
This makes no argument on the face of it. Let's again, look at an analogy. Say everyone agrees that rape is wrong. However, a lot of men really like raping women. So, what we all agree to do is ban raping in ten years. In the meantime, vaginal rape and molestation will be acceptable, but anal rape will be prohibited. This makes absolutely no sense and no reasonable person would agree to it. Either you haven't considered your position or you are irrational.
Wikipedia tells me the vaccine against the influenza virus was developed through a study of chicken eggs.
Well aware of that. Your original position however was that of the miracle cure: one experiment could save a bunch of people, but that one experiment would be horrible to the animal. You haven't provided any evidence to support your assertion and only given evidence to support mine.
But really, what you are saying is that no animal suffering is ever justified, and that's what I find remarkable.
No, I'm saying that the intentional and unintentional infliction of direct or indirect suffering upon an non-consenting party, whether that party be a worm, falcon, hippo, or human is unacceptable. As a corollary to this, I am saying that instrumental use of one being for the benefit of another being, regardless of how much suffering will be alleviated for the many on the basis of the few, cannot be justified.
That is, I am rejecting any and all arguments that take an economic form - the very sort of argument you are prone to; viz., "animal testing could be useful," "to make hundreds of rats suffer mild physical discomfort in order to prevent millions of people from dying"
But it is very easy to think of scenarios in which animal testing could be useful.
I certainly cannot.
But I am throwing it out there because I refuse to see things in black and white.
Good for you! And now you are a stooge for evil, death, and misery. Congratulations. (By the way, you must admit then, that in some cases, rape must be justified, that torture must be justified, that genocide must be justified - or, at the very least, its justification must be "open to debate.")
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2009-06-01 07:29 pm (UTC)ou are conflating cause and reaction. Also just because the overall trends are probably negative doesn't mean we should give up on steps to improve animal welfare.
Any superficial analysis of animal welfare legislation policy clearly indicates that animal welfare has not increased in any measurable way nor has it improved the life of any animal in any appreciable way. By its own standards, animal welfare is a failure. Rather than making the lives of animals more pleasant, animal welfare has created the most elaborate and pervasive system of misery and death ever created. Consider the following analogy: sure it is better to just be raped and murdered instead of tortured, raped and murdered - but even under the "rape welfare," you're still being raped and murdered. This is unacceptable.
So what interim strategy is best in order to minimize harm to animals?
This makes no argument on the face of it. Let's again, look at an analogy. Say everyone agrees that rape is wrong. However, a lot of men really like raping women. So, what we all agree to do is ban raping in ten years. In the meantime, vaginal rape and molestation will be acceptable, but anal rape will be prohibited. This makes absolutely no sense and no reasonable person would agree to it. Either you haven't considered your position or you are irrational.
Wikipedia tells me the vaccine against the influenza virus was developed through a study of chicken eggs.
Well aware of that. Your original position however was that of the miracle cure: one experiment could save a bunch of people, but that one experiment would be horrible to the animal. You haven't provided any evidence to support your assertion and only given evidence to support mine.
But really, what you are saying is that no animal suffering is ever justified, and that's what I find remarkable.
No, I'm saying that the intentional and unintentional infliction of direct or indirect suffering upon an non-consenting party, whether that party be a worm, falcon, hippo, or human is unacceptable. As a corollary to this, I am saying that instrumental use of one being for the benefit of another being, regardless of how much suffering will be alleviated for the many on the basis of the few, cannot be justified.
That is, I am rejecting any and all arguments that take an economic form - the very sort of argument you are prone to; viz., "animal testing could be useful," "to make hundreds of rats suffer mild physical discomfort in order to prevent millions of people from dying"
But it is very easy to think of scenarios in which animal testing could be useful.
I certainly cannot.
But I am throwing it out there because I refuse to see things in black and white.
Good for you! And now you are a stooge for evil, death, and misery. Congratulations. (By the way, you must admit then, that in some cases, rape must be justified, that torture must be justified, that genocide must be justified - or, at the very least, its justification must be "open to debate.")