Three years of autism/schizophrenia research destroyed by

[Montrovant]

Let's be clear about this. The reason to test things on animals is so that you are not testing them on humans. Humans have more value than animals. That's just a basic fact of life for, I think, the majority of the human population. If a living creature must take risks, better it be a rat than a person.

If you disagree that humans are more valuable than animals, I simply don't understand how you think. If you had a choice to save the life of a puppy or a baby, and you aren't sure which you would choose, I would say your way of thinking is more monstrous than research done on rodents.

If you would choose the human baby without hesitation, then you do place more value on human life than animals, and the argument is just one of degree.

And how do you arrive at that conclusion?

There are two ways I can take your question, I'll try to answer both.

I conclude that most people place human life above animal life based on personal experience. I've rarely met anyone who was as upset about animal death as human death; I don't know that I've ever met someone who claimed to put the life of an animal on the same level as a human child; you see people willing to do extraordinary things to save other people far, far more often than animals. So that's where I get the conclusion that most people value humans over animals.

As to where I personally get that value from, it's mostly an issue of intelligence. That's a very general explanation, but the ability to communicate is a big factor, perhaps because we are such social creatures. There's also the ability to understand concepts like death, the ability to feel and express pain, etc. There's even the whole idea of 'sticking with your own kind' to some extent.

Now, there may be individual cases where my values differ. I may care about a pet more than a person I hate. But in general, I consider humans worth more than other life. It is my belief that everyone makes their own judgements about the values of various types of life, and no one truly considers all life of equal value (unless, perhaps, that value is zero).

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Confrontational twat.

You need to work on your reading comprehension.

You need to get back on your meds.

Fail.....

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I respectfully disagree. Yes, those animals ARE tortured. Daily. Just to "see what happens". Does it save human lives? Sometimes. But how many animals have to die to find a cure? They want to experiment..I'm with Noomi. Let them use their own bodies.

To show your support you should decline all life saving drugs when you become ill.
That'll show em.....

What a fucking stupid argument.

Vast amounts of previously inaccessible medical knowledge was gained during the brutal and unethical experiments of Nazi Doctors. By your logic, every time you go to the doctor, you are endorsing Nazi Germany and the experiments done on live humans. Being that this conclusion false, so is the premise, and by analogy, so is your argument. We have certain medical knowledge now, however unscrupulously gained, and using it is not an endorsement of how it was procured. The same with any drugs gotten so far with any amount of animal experimentation. We have these drugs that work, yet any drugs now being used have passed all FDA standards and no longer need to be tested on animals, therefore you are NOT supporting animal testing merely by using a drug was WAS tested on animals. My point is, stop vivisection, but continue the drugs we do have and find another model for research testing. Animal anatomy and physiology is not generalizable to humans. The model is flawed, and millions of animal suffer for this flawed model that doesn't give us any direct knowledge about ourselves.

It is the acceptance of vivisection as viable that is the problem, itself, as it is an avenue of research that still considered acceptable. It is not. Vivisection is absolutely torture, and I am happy these animals were freed. Anyone that says vivisection is not torture doesn't know about vivisection, of thinks the suffering of animals does not matter or is less than than that of humans, which is fallacious reasoning and extremely biased.

Quantum Windbag, Beagles are commonly used in vivisection experiments. Learn a fucking thing before you debate it.

Never see a doc again. That should ease your troubled mind.

 

[Pogo]

Let's be clear about this. The reason to test things on animals is so that you are not testing them on humans. Humans have more value than animals. That's just a basic fact of life for, I think, the majority of the human population. If a living creature must take risks, better it be a rat than a person.

If you disagree that humans are more valuable than animals, I simply don't understand how you think. If you had a choice to save the life of a puppy or a baby, and you aren't sure which you would choose, I would say your way of thinking is more monstrous than research done on rodents.

If you would choose the human baby without hesitation, then you do place more value on human life than animals, and the argument is just one of degree.

And how do you arrive at that conclusion?

There are two ways I can take your question, I'll try to answer both.

I conclude that most people place human life above animal life based on personal experience. I've rarely met anyone who was as upset about animal death as human death; I don't know that I've ever met someone who claimed to put the life of an animal on the same level as a human child; you see people willing to do extraordinary things to save other people far, far more often than animals. So that's where I get the conclusion that most people value humans over animals.

As to where I personally get that value from, it's mostly an issue of intelligence. That's a very general explanation, but the ability to communicate is a big factor, perhaps because we are such social creatures. There's also the ability to understand concepts like death, the ability to feel and express pain, etc. There's even the whole idea of 'sticking with your own kind' to some extent.

Now, there may be individual cases where my values differ. I may care about a pet more than a person I hate. But in general, I consider humans worth more than other life. It is my belief that everyone makes their own judgements about the values of various types of life, and no one truly considers all life of equal value (unless, perhaps, that value is zero).

Thanks, that's much more along the lines of what I was looking for. I have to say though, there's not much logical basis in "most people I know feel this way"-- that's basically an "everybody knows" fallacy.

Lots of animals are social creatures too, many more than we are, and as for ability to understand concepts like death and pain, well how do we know what a rabbit experiences unless we've been a rabbit?

Then it occurs to me there were recent stories of horsemeat being found in European beef, and some were horrified by that (cow OK, horse not OK) on the basis that horses are employed more as pets. Presumably this means their lives are worth more (?)

This is what I'm looking for: a real, logical explanation of why we should deem our lives higher than those of other species. If one of us gets hit by a car, we'll have traffic stopped, ambulances and EMTs on the scene, jaws of life and CPR right on the road. If a dog gets hit by a car, we all just run over it. Some of us will even go out of our way to run over, say, a turtle crossing the road.

That's quite the contrast. How did we get to such a place?

That is IF Kiestergirl doesn't have another fucking meltdown over a simple philosophical query...)

 

[koshergrl]

And how do you arrive at that conclusion?

^^Typical death cultist. Animals and trees are more valuable than humans, and from thence all their garbage emanates.

So why on earth would anyone listen to them when they offer opinions regarding the well being of mankind?

You can go fuck yourself. I asked for a logical path to this conclusion, since none was given, and here you come with the negs. And I wasn't even asking you, nor is it even your original statement.

It must suck moose cock to live in your hateful head where any hint of rational thought is put down like an insurrection. Although it does explain your mindless posts. Must suck even more to be driven to stick your hapless nose into other people's conversations that are completely beyond the grasp of your tiny little mind.

And by the way you offered no logical path either, just parroted the same ipse dixit.
Wassamatta? Can't think? Too deep?

And by the other way hypocrite-- calling me a "death cultist"........ while wearing that avatar?? We should call you "Peg" because that's what you're doing to this meter:

Wow. That's right along the lines of the famed "Catch Fire Aids and Die, If You Can" meltdown...which incidentally was also completely left field whackery.

Like I said, you're a typical death cultist. You guys all swing the exact same.

 

[emilynghiem]

Thanks for posting this KG but sorry to hear this at the same time.
I had been networking around to find researchers interested in proving
how spiritual healing works to cure or reduce both mental and physical ills.

Maybe the restitution owed by animal rights groups could be demanded
and applied to better methods of proving how to diagnose and treat illnesses
without inhuman risks to either animals or humans.

This gives me an idea for a peace treaty over medical research, and maybe we can save even Asian Moon Bears and Pangolin, truly endangered species being killed off for superstitious beliefs in magical healing powers of their body parts, by investing in "medical proof of spiritual healing" which is NATURAL and more cost-effective (and does not call for testing on animals, and also prove the best cures don't require killing animals either!)

Thanks for this insight! out of something tragic maybe greater good can come!

animal rights activists.

And no news about it. Amazing. The true anti-science bloc: progressive nutbags:

"
Activists occupied an animal facility at the University of Milan, Italy, at the weekend, releasing mice and rabbits and mixing up cage labels to confuse experimental protocols. Researchers at the university say that it will take years to recover their work.
Many of the animals at the facility are genetic models for psychiatric disorders such as autism and schizophrenia."

"
Michela Matteoli, a neurobiologist who works on autism and other disorders and lost most of her own research in the attack, says that she found some research students crying in the disrupted facility on Monday morning.
“It will take three people at least a year to build up the colonies we had of mouse models of different psychiatric diseases,” she says."

"...animal-rights and environmental extremists have proven to be be capable of lots of damage and widespread, documented criminal activity. Yet they rarely get the press, say, a picture of a rude sign at a Tea Party rally might get. Maybe our more mainstream animal-rights friends could muster some loud denunciations of such tactics to prevent further losses of valuable research. "

Animal-rights activists wreak havoc in Milan laboratory : Nature News & Comment
Animal-rights activists trash years of autism research in Milan lab raid « Hot Air

 

[koshergrl]

I love you emily.

I hardly ever know what you're talking about, except in the most vague sort of way (and that is not an insult but just an observation, you work in a different sphere than I), but I love you all the same! xoxox!

 

[Pogo]

^^Typical death cultist. Animals and trees are more valuable than humans, and from thence all their garbage emanates.

So why on earth would anyone listen to them when they offer opinions regarding the well being of mankind?

You can go fuck yourself. I asked for a logical path to this conclusion, since none was given, and here you come with the negs. And I wasn't even asking you, nor is it even your original statement.

It must suck moose cock to live in your hateful head where any hint of rational thought is put down like an insurrection. Although it does explain your mindless posts. Must suck even more to be driven to stick your hapless nose into other people's conversations that are completely beyond the grasp of your tiny little mind.

And by the way you offered no logical path either, just parroted the same ipse dixit.
Wassamatta? Can't think? Too deep?

And by the other way hypocrite-- calling me a "death cultist"........ while wearing that avatar?? We should call you "Peg" because that's what you're doing to this meter:

Wow. That's right along the lines of the famed "Catch Fire Aids and Die, If You Can" meltdown...which incidentally was also completely left field whackery.

Like I said, you're a typical death cultist. You guys all swing the exact same.

And you (singular, because I don't do labels) are a complete fucking wacko loon hypocrite who just can't stand the idea of anyone else asking philosophical questions, determined to stamp out thought everywhere with your tired busybody self-righteous crap. Fuck you and everybody that thinks like you.

"the famed "Catch Fire Aids and Die, If You Can" meltdown...which incidentally was also completely left field whackery"??

who knows what the hell that means...

And btw I'm not the "death cultist"; I practice Ahimsa. You on the other hand -- well again, just see your own avatar.

Dumbass.

 

[koshergrl]

You can go fuck yourself. I asked for a logical path to this conclusion, since none was given, and here you come with the negs. And I wasn't even asking you, nor is it even your original statement.

It must suck moose cock to live in your hateful head where any hint of rational thought is put down like an insurrection. Although it does explain your mindless posts. Must suck even more to be driven to stick your hapless nose into other people's conversations that are completely beyond the grasp of your tiny little mind.

And by the way you offered no logical path either, just parroted the same ipse dixit.
Wassamatta? Can't think? Too deep?

And by the other way hypocrite-- calling me a "death cultist"........ while wearing that avatar?? We should call you "Peg" because that's what you're doing to this meter:

Wow. That's right along the lines of the famed "Catch Fire Aids and Die, If You Can" meltdown...which incidentally was also completely left field whackery.

Like I said, you're a typical death cultist. You guys all swing the exact same.

And you (singular, because I don't do labels) are a complete fucking wacko loon hypocrite who just can't stand the idea of anyone else asking philosophical questions, determined to stamp out thought everywhere with your tired busybody self-righteous crap. Fuck you and everybody that thinks like you.

"the famed "Catch Fire Aids and Die, If You Can" meltdown...which incidentally was also completely left field whackery"??

who knows what the hell that means...

And btw I'm not the "death cultist"; I practice Ahimsa. You on the other hand -- well again, just see your own avatar.

Dumbass.

You've got some anger issues there, death cultist. I recommend meditation.
I'll start you off....
Ooooohhhhhhmmmmmmm....

 

[emilynghiem]

Let's be clear about this. The reason to test things on animals is so that you are not testing them on humans. Humans have more value than animals. That's just a basic fact of life for, I think, the majority of the human population. If a living creature must take risks, better it be a rat than a person.

If you disagree that humans are more valuable than animals, I simply don't understand how you think. If you had a choice to save the life of a puppy or a baby, and you aren't sure which you would choose, I would say your way of thinking is more monstrous than research done on rodents.

If you would choose the human baby without hesitation, then you do place more value on human life than animals, and the argument is just one of degree.

And how do you arrive at that conclusion?

^^Typical death cultist. Animals and trees are more valuable than humans, and from thence all their garbage emanates.

So why on earth would anyone listen to them when they offer opinions regarding the well being of mankind?

Actually folks,
can we agree that if we live as naturally as possible in harmony with nature, each other
in society and the world,
that we will reduce any harm or risk to health of ALL beings,
ALL people, plants or animals together?
Why not focus on that as the common goal
and not argue if one person says that the value of saving the such and such species
is more important than giving to the Red Cross to save human lives in Somalia?

Let all people work on their OWN priorities of addressing all issues
that affect all life.
Together, we CAN cover all the bases!
let environmentalists do the part they are most sensitive and interested in.
let other people handle diseases and other social ills affecting people directly, etc.

why this fuss?
c'mon
why the scarcity mentality that you have to sacrifice one for the other?
why can't we live in ways that are healthy for the whole planet
and not cause extreme or undue harm or threat to ANY life form? OK?

 

[Dajjal]

I had been networking around to find researchers interested in proving
how spiritual healing works to cure or reduce both mental and physical ills.

I could tell you a lot about this as I have had much spiritual healing for schizophrenia.
It is not a cure but gives temporary relief by cleansing the aura and the chakras.
The processes of mental illness attract negative energy, and healing clears it away.

However it is still best to take the medication, as in my experience spiritual healing is not a one time miracle cure, and the latest drugs target the brain chemicals effectively.

But I do not want to take this thread off topic with a load of personal stuff, so maybe I should start a thread about Schizophrenia and psychic experiences. Although my experience does make me something of a lab rat.

 

[emilynghiem]

I love you emily.

I hardly ever know what you're talking about, except in the most vague sort of way (and that is not an insult but just an observation, you work in a different sphere than I), but I love you all the same! xoxox!

love you too koshergirl
I think we both work and think in ways mysterious to others
and maybe that is why we can still share a vague connection or understanding despite this

I find it equally mysterious that you can recommend
meditation to someone while labeling them a "death cultist" at the same time

your words are like a Zen riddle themselves, and the irony would be funny
if it didn't involve someone's feelings being hurt
I hope people seek higher levels of solutions and understnading this process is leading to
and don't get caught up in the conflicts along the way which are not really the issue.

as for whether humans or animals have greater value
can we agree that humans have greater responsibility
because we have greater ability to study and correct problems?

if we focus on a path to solutions, we don't have to get
sidetracked on where our values disagree.

Some of the same solutions that would save people and
save the planet would also save plants and animals.
And some of the same solutions that would save plants
and animals from destruction would also save people.
can we agree to do both, to seek sustainable solutions
that don't sacrifice anyone or anything so we don't have thse arguments?

 

[emilynghiem]

I had been networking around to find researchers interested in proving
how spiritual healing works to cure or reduce both mental and physical ills.

I could tell you a lot about this as I have had much spiritual healing for schizophrenia.
It is not a cure but gives temporary relief by cleansing the aura and the chakras.
The processes of mental illness attract negative energy, and healing clears it away.

However it is still best to take the medication, as in my experience spiritual healing is not a one time miracle cure, and the latest drugs target the brain chemicals effectively.

But I do not want to take this thread off topic with a load of personal stuff, so maybe I should start a thread about Schizophrenia and psychic experiences. Although my experience does make me something of a lab rat.

yes, please do start a thread and I hope koshergirl will add comments about spiritual influences from demons that I understand are removed or kept in check by
spiritual healing and deliverance methods.

thank you also for contributing to the posts on islam and christianity.
Buddhism and Christianity both teach about generational influences
that need to be let go or healed so the karma/sin does not pass on another generation.
so there is research going on with these separately, but I would like to show
that they are both teaching part of the same process and start studying this together.

this will take a new thread.

and the more people are spiritually healed and whole
there is no argument if people or animals are more important
because all creation or life is respected in harmony and all things are necessary
and no part can be sacrificed without affecting the whole.
so arguing which is more important becomes moot.

he he vain attempt to tie this back into the thread
when clearly we were diverting ha ha oh well! ;-)

 

[emilynghiem]

You can go fuck yourself. I asked for a logical path to this conclusion, since none was given, and here you come with the negs. And I wasn't even asking you, nor is it even your original statement.

It must suck moose cock to live in your hateful head where any hint of rational thought is put down like an insurrection. Although it does explain your mindless posts. Must suck even more to be driven to stick your hapless nose into other people's conversations that are completely beyond the grasp of your tiny little mind.

And by the way you offered no logical path either, just parroted the same ipse dixit.
Wassamatta? Can't think? Too deep?

And by the other way hypocrite-- calling me a "death cultist"........ while wearing that avatar?? We should call you "Peg" because that's what you're doing to this meter:

Wow. That's right along the lines of the famed "Catch Fire Aids and Die, If You Can" meltdown...which incidentally was also completely left field whackery.

Like I said, you're a typical death cultist. You guys all swing the exact same.

And you (singular, because I don't do labels) are a complete fucking wacko loon hypocrite who just can't stand the idea of anyone else asking philosophical questions, determined to stamp out thought everywhere with your tired busybody self-righteous crap. Fuck you and everybody that thinks like you.

"the famed "Catch Fire Aids and Die, If You Can" meltdown...which incidentally was also completely left field whackery"??

who knows what the hell that means...

And btw I'm not the "death cultist"; I practice Ahimsa. You on the other hand -- well again, just see your own avatar.

Dumbass.

Hi Pogo I'm sorry that because of your sensitivity and conscientiousness
it hurts your feelings for someone to call you a "death cultist"
while at the same time recommending that you "meditate" for your anger issues.

Do you really think it is worth the frustration of taking this bait?

I can't help but notice the people with the most clear judgment
like the Dalai Lama who seeks to be fair and compassionate while
sharing wisdom, recognizes each person with respect as a spiritual being.

So for your exchanges with KG to be uplifting and helpful to either of you,
either one or both of you should at least be respectful and try to
lift the other up to a higher level of compassion and wisdom.

if you both call each other names and stay in the mud,
as they say, is it better to be a pig satisfied with rolling in the dirt
or Socrates dissatisfied and seeking to rise above dirt level?

how is this benefiting either of you to call names back and forth and taunt each other?

from my intuition and reading through your other messages
you both have higher inspirations and capacity than this.
may I please ask the both of you to appeal to each other's higher intelligent selves, and not this namecalling level that any fool can stoop to and it does nothing for either of you.

i know you are both better than that
so of course it hurts your feelings to be insulted and treated as less
please!

more love, less fear

I prefer to see the good sides of your points and knowledge worth sharing.
this stuff here, does nothing but insult your intelligence I know you both have more of than this.

thank you for sharing and I look forward
to hearing more from your perspective
which adds to and complements, and does not compete with other viewpoints.

 

[Pogo]

I love you emily.

I hardly ever know what you're talking about, except in the most vague sort of way (and that is not an insult but just an observation, you work in a different sphere than I), but I love you all the same! xoxox!

love you too koshergirl
I think we both work and think in ways mysterious to others
and maybe that is why we can still share a vague connection or understanding despite this

I find it equally mysterious that you can recommend
meditation to someone while labeling them a "death cultist" at the same time

your words are like a Zen riddle themselves, and the irony would be funny
if it didn't involve someone's feelings being hurt
I hope people seek higher levels of solutions and understnading this process is leading to
and don't get caught up in the conflicts along the way which are not really the issue.

as for whether humans or animals have greater value
can we agree that humans have greater responsibility
because we have greater ability to study and correct problems?

if we focus on a path to solutions, we don't have to get
sidetracked on where our values disagree.

Some of the same solutions that would save people and
save the planet would also save plants and animals.
And some of the same solutions that would save plants
and animals from destruction would also save people.
can we agree to do both, to seek sustainable solutions
that don't sacrifice anyone or anything so we don't have thse arguments?

From your lips to God's ears, Emily.

Unfortunately some people are so wallowing in their own hate they seem to feel the need to put others down, even for a simple philosophical question such as mine. Montrovant (the poster I was actually addressing) took the question in the spirit intended, an exploration of logic. I always like to know how we got where we are. KG's approach, slightly different; attack the questioner.

Krashergirl has done the same thing before, to me and others. As I noted before it must be hell in her head, with all the contradictions in there vying for attention.

Check out this passage before I tell you what thread it comes from:

The accusing spirit is an anti-Christ spirit, because it approaches people with no love, but a tone of condemnation. It works through a voice; the voice of condemnation. It constantly tells you how much of a failure you are. It tells you how your heart is not right with God. It tells you that if you don't read your Bible every day, that you aren't serious about your relationship with God. It basically tells you that you're never good enough. This is the exact opposite nature of God. It tears down rather than builds up. The accusing spirit uses the letter of the law to lay heavy burdens and crush it's victims, just as the Pharisees would do:

"What the accusing spirit wants us to do is overlook or even discredit God's remedy for our failures! Sound like a Satanic mission? That's right! This spirit has all the makings of being righteous, even a minister of righteousness, but inside is a raving wolf seeking whom he may devour. He's busy carrying out the work of his father, the devil."

The irony is where it comes from.

None so blind.

 

[koshergrl]

Oh brother.

 

[Pogo]

Wow. That's right along the lines of the famed "Catch Fire Aids and Die, If You Can" meltdown...which incidentally was also completely left field whackery.

Like I said, you're a typical death cultist. You guys all swing the exact same.

And you (singular, because I don't do labels) are a complete fucking wacko loon hypocrite who just can't stand the idea of anyone else asking philosophical questions, determined to stamp out thought everywhere with your tired busybody self-righteous crap. Fuck you and everybody that thinks like you.

"the famed "Catch Fire Aids and Die, If You Can" meltdown...which incidentally was also completely left field whackery"??

who knows what the hell that means...

And btw I'm not the "death cultist"; I practice Ahimsa. You on the other hand -- well again, just see your own avatar.

Dumbass.

Hi Pogo I'm sorry that because of your sensitivity and conscientiousness
it hurts your feelings for someone to call you a "death cultist"
while at the same time recommending that you "meditate" for your anger issues.

Do you really think it is worth the frustration of taking this bait?

I can't help but notice the people with the most clear judgment
like the Dalai Lama who seeks to be fair and compassionate while
sharing wisdom, recognizes each person with respect as a spiritual being.

So for your exchanges with KG to be uplifting and helpful to either of you,
either one or both of you should at least be respectful and try to
lift the other up to a higher level of compassion and wisdom.

if you both call each other names and stay in the mud,
as they say, is it better to be a pig satisfied with rolling in the dirt
or Socrates dissatisfied and seeking to rise above dirt level?

how is this benefiting either of you to call names back and forth and taunt each other?

from my intuition and reading through your other messages
you both have higher inspirations and capacity than this.
may I please ask the both of you to appeal to each other's higher intelligent selves, and not this namecalling level that any fool can stoop to and it does nothing for either of you.

i know you are both better than that
so of course it hurts your feelings to be insulted and treated as less
please!

more love, less fear

Whoa, don't misunderstand. This doesn't "hurt my feelings"; it pegs my irony meter.

KG and I have a history-- not a long one but a history where, if I say something philosophical (never to her because she can't handle it, but to somebody else), she'll come barging in with negs and insults. I don't really care what she thinks of me, I consider the source, but it tends to quash the philosophical discussion I was looking for.

And yes I recognize "meditate" as bait bullshit, and again I consider the source and ignore it. That's just noise.

Thanks for trying but I don't care to have any kind of exchange with KG whatsoever. She's obviously not capable of it. If she'd just butt the fuck out when I'm talking to somebody else about matters she has no intention of comprehending we'd be better off. As far as I'm concerned she's consumed with hate. I don't pursue that. She pursues me. Why she does that, I don't know and I don't care. I'm not a psychiatrist and it's not my problem.

 

[koshergrl]

We don't have a history, pogo. I don't even know who you are...you're one of a horde of death cultist loons who populate this place. Any relationship you believe we have is entirely in your head, where apparently you give me a lot of room.

BTW...I'm related to Henry Wallace, and Lew Wallace. Lew was my great granduncle.

Or something like that. He was my great grandfather's brother.

You may offer homage now. In addition to the homage you have already bestowed upon me.

 

[Montrovant]

And how do you arrive at that conclusion?

There are two ways I can take your question, I'll try to answer both.

I conclude that most people place human life above animal life based on personal experience. I've rarely met anyone who was as upset about animal death as human death; I don't know that I've ever met someone who claimed to put the life of an animal on the same level as a human child; you see people willing to do extraordinary things to save other people far, far more often than animals. So that's where I get the conclusion that most people value humans over animals.

As to where I personally get that value from, it's mostly an issue of intelligence. That's a very general explanation, but the ability to communicate is a big factor, perhaps because we are such social creatures. There's also the ability to understand concepts like death, the ability to feel and express pain, etc. There's even the whole idea of 'sticking with your own kind' to some extent.

Now, there may be individual cases where my values differ. I may care about a pet more than a person I hate. But in general, I consider humans worth more than other life. It is my belief that everyone makes their own judgements about the values of various types of life, and no one truly considers all life of equal value (unless, perhaps, that value is zero).

Thanks, that's much more along the lines of what I was looking for. I have to say though, there's not much logical basis in "most people I know feel this way"-- that's basically an "everybody knows" fallacy.

Lots of animals are social creatures too, many more than we are, and as for ability to understand concepts like death and pain, well how do we know what a rabbit experiences unless we've been a rabbit?

Then it occurs to me there were recent stories of horsemeat being found in European beef, and some were horrified by that (cow OK, horse not OK) on the basis that horses are employed more as pets. Presumably this means their lives are worth more (?)

This is what I'm looking for: a real, logical explanation of why we should deem our lives higher than those of other species. If one of us gets hit by a car, we'll have traffic stopped, ambulances and EMTs on the scene, jaws of life and CPR right on the road. If a dog gets hit by a car, we all just run over it. Some of us will even go out of our way to run over, say, a turtle crossing the road.

That's quite the contrast. How did we get to such a place?

That is IF Kiestergirl doesn't have another fucking meltdown over a simple philosophical query...)

Oh, there's a ton of hypocrisy about what animals are good to use as food and what animals are not. I found the horse meat issue way overblown; unless you are allergic, at worst it might be that you end up with bad tasting meat.

It's similar to the way we are ok using pigs as meat animals, but I've often heard they are as smart as dogs. Why are dogs taboo as food but not pigs?

I wasn't attempting to use my belief that most people value humans more than animals as a way to justify that belief, merely as a informational statement. It is relevant to this discussion. And based on the way humanity has bred animals for food, slaughtered animals when they are inconvenient, run tests on animals, etc.....I'd say there's pretty strong evidence I'm correct. So the idea that humans are more valuable than animals is not some strange opinion.

Whether other animals are social or not isn't entirely relevant. It's their ability to be social and communicate with us that's important. The day cows start speaking to humans, I'll swear off of beef. It's simply easier to by sympathetic and empathetic to a creature you can communicate with directly, that is more the point I was making with being social.

As to how we got to a place of valuing animals so much less....I think you have it backwards. I think animals are probably valued more now than at any other time in human history, generally speaking. Animals rights are a fairly recent concept; laws protecting animals are not some kind of universal human trait; humanity has never valued animals as much as it's own kind.

And as I have said, I believe that everyone who places any value on life makes judgements as to the different values those forms of life have. A person may value animal life as much as human, but feel differently about insects. That person may feel differently about plants. That person may feel differently about bacteria, or viruses. Life comes in so many different forms, and comes and goes on such a constant basis, giving all life value and making it of equal value would almost require a person to stop living.

So the judgements we each make about the value of various forms of life differs from other people basically in degree.

 

[koshergrl]

Dogs aren't taboo, if you're starving.

Pig is a go-to meat because they are cheap to feed and they produce a lot of meat for relatively little cost, and they are hardy. They can be raised in a small space, or they can run. They're a great meat animal.

Horses are expensive...it takes them a long time to make weight, it costs a lot to feed them, specialized pens are needed, a certain amount of space, and they are subject to injury and illness that don't haunt other meat animals. And they have a lot of bone mass compared to meat mass, which makes their value as meat go down.

I agree that animals have more value. We value animals more now...and subsequently, we value human life less. It's insane.