lovejunkie02

i think people should value quality of life, not just life itself. would that solve the whole problem? i don't understand why there's a big to do about it anyway. i mean, i understand that there is one, i just don't know why. if someone wants to take their life, do they really consider the legal ramifications anyway? though really, i consider suicide and euthanasia two different things. i think of (whether there is actually a distinction or not) euthanasia as assisted suicide. i suppose there is the potential of a slippery slope there but i feel like there should be some option for people who are suffering and want to die.

what aggression towards other animals? i've heard that pit bulls are even more aggressive when it comes to other dogs, etc. http://www.ksat.com/news/14413827/detail.html to me this is just as much an issue as human attacks.

no i said what i meant. you misquoted me. you changed the exact words of my post and in doing so, completely changed the meaning. that was my point and it still stands.

you've terrible misquoted me here. someone said that i should take one person's account as universal truth. what i said in response is just because one person has a single account of life on a farm does not mean that it is true for all animals' lives on farms. i said "because there is one farm that doesn't mistreat their animals does not mean that there are no farms that do so." that's quite different.

i'm sorry. i must have missed your "argument". which one are you referring to? the one where y'all just say "read everyone else's posts? or the one where y'all just say it is so because it just is? and one person's experience is not universal truth. because there is one farm that doesn't mistreat their animals does not mean that there are no farms that do so. This was my honest question: And this is the answer I got back: Now, it seems to me that this isn't a sophisticated, supported, intelligent response in any kind of way. So of course I responded with a judgment: And of course, I get: Seems like just another post trying to bait me. How would you have me respond to that? You can continue to dismiss me if you want. Continue to feel superior. Do what makes you feel good.

Obviously, it's not clear. At least not to me. I believe that is the argument we are now having. I have read everyone else's posts. I think my point was that it seemed a selfish view and it's not any less selfish just because other people or animals behave in similar ways. I think that post was in response to one in which someone said, basically, that it was indeed selfish but they do it anyway. So you missed the argument completely. And I don't dismiss anyone. I don't agree with it, but I don't dismiss them or their opinions. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the warning. I'll just be here, quakin' in my vegan boots. You're so aggressive. What's that about? Is this not you, "claiming the moral high ground" here?

i'm glad to hear it. you own them, you have a responsibility to take care of them, at the very least.

you say that and then offer no proof of its truth. and what about the rest of the animals? chickens, turkeys, pigs, etc. no more than you do, i suppose. yes, and some people believe god created the world. and some people believe it's ok to have sex with children. and some people believe it's ok to chop other people's heads off. so what? that has no bearing on what i think. um, ok. argue it. i'm not sure about selfishness. why don't you enlighten me and give me some examples of how i might be living a selfish life? i'm sure there are some ways (which i probably cannot help), but I don't think that has any bearing on the things that I can help and things that I can willingly choose to do. and I don't know what you're talking about in regards to nature. It just sound like blah blah blah to me because I don't think it relates to anything i said. did i ever say that my opinion was fact? did i try to force it on you? i don't think i did. I'm just throwin' in my two cents here. Sorry to offend, your highness.

really? sounds like a pretty good argument to me. but then maybe you don't mind being selfish. however, i do not believe that the majority of animals raised for food are treated humanely. they suffer and then they die. i can only speak for myself, but i'd much rather live a free, natural life, even for a few months, than one in a cage or a pen. it's the quality of the lives of the animals that i'm most concerned with, not just the killing of them. back what up with what? my own personal feeings on the matter? just because you don't agree, you just dismiss them? well ok. i'm not sure what kind of "evidence" you're looking for. let me know and i'll see what i can do.

um, i guess if you want to eat roadkill, that's up to you. sounds pretty gross to me. you can try to set up various hypothetical questions and situations and try to talk me into a corner, but i'll still say that eating meat causes suffering and we don't have to in order to survive and i wish that more people weren't so selfish. just leave animals alone and let them live their lives with as little human intervention as possible.

it will be interesting i think to watch this play out and see what comes of it. i hope they throw the book at the owner. a 77 year old woman was attacked by a pit bull that escaped from its yard. just a brief article here

you would willingly cause the suffering of another being just to gratify yourself for, what, a couple of minutes at the most? wow.

if you don't absolutely have to cause the pain or suffering of another animal in order to survive, why would you? we don't need meat, so why eat it?

(f) 29 yes, abortion should be an option. not your body, not your life, not your business.

is this something you have researched or are you just stating your opinion on the matter? do you not think genetics has anything to do with disposition and personality? and in wild animals, there's so much more natural instinct. i don't think you can "train" that out of an animal. choose a vegetable for your next meal.

you're an idiot and that is a beast of a post and i'm just not that bothered to put forth the effort to respond. don't tell me what i think or what i can think or put me in a box according to what you think i am. take your "right?" and shove it.

ANY pit bull can be as safe as a kitten? are you sure about that?

except that it's not spam.

scary, but not surprising. do you know if he was ever convicted? what does this mean for the research he was conducting? and they even included the guy that was involved in the research with him in the charges! bogus. one thing i'm wondering though... why was he conducting this research at home? unbelievable.

seems to me (and i couldn't quite decipher from the article) that it depends on the level of participation by verizon. meaning, when you sign up for the messages, is it via a program run by or through verizon? if so, i could understand that they have the right (though i think it's ridiculous) to say that they don't want to be involved in that sort of controversial program. but if the program is run by naral pro-choice america, and all that is happening is the messages are being sent via verizon service, then this is absolutely wrong. if i sent a text to a friend of mine about abortion, would they censor that?

in general, no. there may be some instances i would be comfortable with but none come to mind at the moment.

i did read all the way through this thread, i think, and didn't find what i was looking for. i'm seriously interested in this specific argument because i've never encountered it before and would love to read up on it. i just can't quite find (yet) any sources. in this thread, if i remember correctly, there was discussion of it but nothing very substantial offered in the way of evidence.

can you provide some references so i can study up on this?

not much, admitedly. i have a background in biology and have researched some. i think though that my feelings about animal testing would be the same whether i knew everything about everything or nothing about nothing. i just don't agree with it on a very simple level. i am incredulous. 1 - i do not accept this as fact. some animal testing may have resulted in the abatement of some human suffering, but that is a rather simple way to put it, i think. there are many more factors to be considered. 2- of course we know. you can split hairs all day long, but there is just no denying that we are inflicting pain. p.s. if you're tired of discussing, why are you still here posting?

i'm not sure if this response was to me or someone else but if it was addressed to me... we certainly have different views but i don't think that makes me "mistaken" in regards to my perception. and i think i said something akin to letting nature run its course and i meant exactly that. we might not have the need for all the millions of medications that we have had we let natural selection weed them out of the population. and finally, there is NOTHING you can say that will convince me that animals used in research are treated humanely. you can tell me about all the regulations in the world and even take me to some research labs, but that will not be sufficient. i'm curious as to why you so blindly accept that animals are not suffering. there is no reason to believe either that it IS natural. other species may, but are we not more evolved than that? is that not the very premise of the original argument? if we are evolved enough to reason and perceive and rationalize, why should we not use those to do what we know is better?