-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Dissection
- Thread starter Blissey_ODonnell
- Start date
We did a crawdad. Thats right. A crawfish.
Big whoop, they come frozen and dead you have to thaw them out.
All of the things do, now what is creepy is when they start dissecting cow/goat eyeballs. My sisters had to do that. Nasty WTF is wrong with the 80's schools?
Thinking back on the crawdads little organs, even though it was disgusting, it is an important role because you must be able to disscern what is what if you are going to survive in the wild at all you need to know what organ is what and what is does before you eat it. That is the problem with americans they don't ever get exposed to the tongue, brains, head, fins/spine of fish, or other strange meats that the other parts of the world enjoy without negative hesitation. Us americans are so brainwashed to perfectly cut red slabs of beef that we couldn't gut an animal and cut its organs out unless we were already hunters and taught as children (which not many kids have the ability to do so, even with parents with guns). When you go across seas you will run into a lot of strange dishes made from a lot of strange stuff, but suprisingly it tastes good, and in most cases, better then the bland crap we settle for over here!
Big whoop, they come frozen and dead you have to thaw them out.
All of the things do, now what is creepy is when they start dissecting cow/goat eyeballs. My sisters had to do that. Nasty WTF is wrong with the 80's schools?
Thinking back on the crawdads little organs, even though it was disgusting, it is an important role because you must be able to disscern what is what if you are going to survive in the wild at all you need to know what organ is what and what is does before you eat it. That is the problem with americans they don't ever get exposed to the tongue, brains, head, fins/spine of fish, or other strange meats that the other parts of the world enjoy without negative hesitation. Us americans are so brainwashed to perfectly cut red slabs of beef that we couldn't gut an animal and cut its organs out unless we were already hunters and taught as children (which not many kids have the ability to do so, even with parents with guns). When you go across seas you will run into a lot of strange dishes made from a lot of strange stuff, but suprisingly it tastes good, and in most cases, better then the bland crap we settle for over here!
As a society we view murder and slaughter with disgust. We are outraged by the injustice that is killing. But we let our selfishness take over and act like its ok when its another species, and its not.
It would be far more efficient to dissect humans, who are literally EDIT: "Fucking our Earth in the ass when Earth doesn't want us to" our Earth of resources, eradicating species into oblivion, and preforming genocides on all walks of life. It would do wonders!
So if you really, truly, and honestly think that dissection is ok, do it on fucking humans, and do the biomes, creatures, and all indigenous life on Earth a favor.
One could argue that dissection was necessary up until the 1950's for the sake of medical advancement, but since then the medical community has been practicing vivisection. The only reason they do this is so when a medication ends up killing humans they can cover there ass and say, "we tested it on animals via vivisection, the drug companies said it was ok for us to release this drug." So when drugs the are said to help prevent heart disease lead to a 40% suicide rate in there patients, they covered there ass.
Colleges are the main practicer's of vivisection, and get paid millions of $ by drug companies to do so. UCLA, Colorado State are the main to culprits behind vivisection.
Yep, thus you eat hamburgers, hot dogs, meat, and pretty much anything else edible, right? This proves your moral value.
" But it's to stay alive!" Well, yeah. But dissecting is to learn. Let's say that you are in college and you get some..pop quiz question of whether or not the inside of a frog is blah blah blah blah blah. If you didn't learn about this, your screwed.
About the video, watching a video doesn't really make you learn more. Hands on experience is better.
First of all, you're right, I'm not a vegetarian, but you shouldn't make assumptions in an argument.
Killing for nourishment =/= killing for curiosity, at least in my eyes. You wouldn't like it if a Viking came up to you and stabbed you to make sure you weren't a spirit, would you (which btw, they actually did)?
Killing for nourishment =/= killing for curiosity, at least in my eyes. You wouldn't like it if a Viking came up to you and stabbed you to make sure you weren't a spirit, would you (which btw, they actually did)?
^^ You do bring up some interesting points, but i'd say the more an animal is genetically similar to us, the less likely we are to kill it. As humans, we tend to categorize small animals as worthless, or dumb, and then we kill them with no or little afterthought.
Organisms that relate to us are probably where I would draw the line. They use intelligence instead of pure instinct to go about their surroundings. Naturally, these animals would be mammals with large brains for a better memory. They also tend to lay less eggs and thus raise their young with more care.
If they can learn and display personalities (differences in preferences or actions, interacting with people, etc.), then they are an organism not worth killing. I wouldn't kill a cat or a dog arbitrarily, much less a monkey, but frogs are not in this group, thus I wouldn't feel bad about killing one.
My point is moot anyway though, considering that animals that are dissected are raised exactly for that purpose and that they'll be dead anyway. Even though it is killing for curiosity, we are increasing their chances of survival when compared to the wild. Not many of the eggs that a frog lays in the wild will survive as compared to if they were laid in captivity. Wouldn't you agree that it's better for an animal to at least have time to live rather than being killed before birth?
Essentially, we are allowing more frogs to live, then killing them all off. If you agreed with the statement in my last paragraph, then the killing of frogs for dissection is fully rationalized.
Organisms that relate to us are probably where I would draw the line. They use intelligence instead of pure instinct to go about their surroundings. Naturally, these animals would be mammals with large brains for a better memory. They also tend to lay less eggs and thus raise their young with more care.
If they can learn and display personalities (differences in preferences or actions, interacting with people, etc.), then they are an organism not worth killing. I wouldn't kill a cat or a dog arbitrarily, much less a monkey, but frogs are not in this group, thus I wouldn't feel bad about killing one.
My point is moot anyway though, considering that animals that are dissected are raised exactly for that purpose and that they'll be dead anyway. Even though it is killing for curiosity, we are increasing their chances of survival when compared to the wild. Not many of the eggs that a frog lays in the wild will survive as compared to if they were laid in captivity. Wouldn't you agree that it's better for an animal to at least have time to live rather than being killed before birth?
Essentially, we are allowing more frogs to live, then killing them all off. If you agreed with the statement in my last paragraph, then the killing of frogs for dissection is fully rationalized.
I don't think this relates to the argument, because this is killing among humans which is known to be bad. We don't kill animal for dissection because of something we don't know. We kill them for the unique experience it gives kids and adults alike to open up a body and explore how life works.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with killing animals. You cannot learn biology without having seen an animal's interior at least once, much like you can't learn a language without hearing it, or learn how to walk without doing it etc.
We are supposed to rule over the animals. This doesn't mean that we should go kill them all or something, but it does mean that there is absolutely nothing wrong with killing some for our benefit, as long as it's within proportion.
Most of the time they use animals who are already dead, or animals like frogs, insects and worms. There's even less wrong with this.
At my school they used a dead rabbit and a dead chicken. The rabbit was shot by a hunter and the chicken was from a local farm. I didn't cut in it myself but the teacher demonstrated it to us. I found it very interesting and not gross at all.
The assumption that the life of a worm is even remotely equal to the life of a human is simply prepostorous, by the way.
We are supposed to rule over the animals. This doesn't mean that we should go kill them all or something, but it does mean that there is absolutely nothing wrong with killing some for our benefit, as long as it's within proportion.
Most of the time they use animals who are already dead, or animals like frogs, insects and worms. There's even less wrong with this.
At my school they used a dead rabbit and a dead chicken. The rabbit was shot by a hunter and the chicken was from a local farm. I didn't cut in it myself but the teacher demonstrated it to us. I found it very interesting and not gross at all.
The assumption that the life of a worm is even remotely equal to the life of a human is simply prepostorous, by the way.
I see nothing wrong with the dissection of animals in schools. The baby pigs that are dissected in my school's Biology class all came from mothers at a slaughter house, who would have been thrown into the trash if the school hadn't bought it to teach kid's how an organism works. I'm sure the pig would have been happy to have a use in life, than to just been thrown away, correct?
I don't like killing animals, but I see no problem with dissecting something that is already long dead. I doubt the school board has people going out and kidnapping cats and dogs to use them for Biology class - Most come dead, whether from natural causes, etc. (No, someone probably didn't kill it on purpose).
The frogs, meh. They are usually fully grown and have bred at some point, so their purpose in life has already ended. What is the point of the frog just dying in the pond of old age having and overpopulating the pond with another couple dozen of children? It had some kids, lived a lengthy frog life, but now it is time for us to use it.
Worms? Come on, they are worms. I would have to step on a worm and kill it, but if I'm going to cut it open and examine its body not like it went to waste. There are probably more worms on this planet than people, and a couple used for a Biology class hardly puts affects them.
In short, I'm fine with dissection of certain animals (Dissecting a Gorilla, I would have to say now unless it died of old age or something) for the sake of schooling. Let's be honest though, is there really a difference between cooking raw chicken meat and eating it and dissecting the chicken?
Not really.
I don't like killing animals, but I see no problem with dissecting something that is already long dead. I doubt the school board has people going out and kidnapping cats and dogs to use them for Biology class - Most come dead, whether from natural causes, etc. (No, someone probably didn't kill it on purpose).
The frogs, meh. They are usually fully grown and have bred at some point, so their purpose in life has already ended. What is the point of the frog just dying in the pond of old age having and overpopulating the pond with another couple dozen of children? It had some kids, lived a lengthy frog life, but now it is time for us to use it.
Worms? Come on, they are worms. I would have to step on a worm and kill it, but if I'm going to cut it open and examine its body not like it went to waste. There are probably more worms on this planet than people, and a couple used for a Biology class hardly puts affects them.
In short, I'm fine with dissection of certain animals (Dissecting a Gorilla, I would have to say now unless it died of old age or something) for the sake of schooling. Let's be honest though, is there really a difference between cooking raw chicken meat and eating it and dissecting the chicken?
Not really.
I have never done a dissection, although i REALLY want to, since it sounds cool. I'm not squeamish, in general. And, one last thing:
How many of you that are opposed to dissection eat meat?
Odd, since I'm a vegitarian and I want to do a dissection. xD
What would dissecting a Whale be like? You'd have to walk into it. O.o
How many of you that are opposed to dissection eat meat?
Odd, since I'm a vegitarian and I want to do a dissection. xD
What would dissecting a Whale be like? You'd have to walk into it. O.o
You realize that your life has absolutely no more significance than the life of a worm, right? What exactly makes you (or any human) so much more important than the ground you walk on, or the creatures that coexist with you on earth? You don't have a right to control nature. Humans have done more harm to this planet than every other species that has ever existed combined. If anything, WE are the ones that don't deserve a right to nature. What exactly gives us the right to rule over animals?
People that think like you are dangerous. If you have that little respect for the life of a worm or a dog, how can you justify having respect for human life? This kind of philosophy is the reason why the environment is almost irreparably poisoned yet nothing is done to fix it. Instead of just thinking about yourself, why don't you try waking up and realizing that there is really something wrong with what's happening around you?
On topic, I agree with having dissection in schools. Schools are supposed to prepare you for the real world, so it should be expected that you experience these things in SCIENCE CLASS so you have an idea of what you have to do later on if you choose that route. Obviously, there will be people who dislike it. That's why schools offer other classes.
I have never heard about breeding and raising animals specifically for dissection, and I would like some evidence before you make such a strong claim.
The cats that get dissected in my school are mostly feril cats caught with traps or simply killed by farmers because they threatened their fowl/pets/w.e. As for frogs/rats/worms? they were all caught in the wild as far as I know (at least for my school), and I think some of the opinions here are kind of extreme. Personally, I'll never feel bad for opening up anything that was killed for a useful purpose especially when it helps kids better understand anatomy. (For the ones that care that is) The ones in my school were never killed/bred just so kids could open them so I don't see the point in complaining about their deaths when they helped other human beings. Doubt I'll ever value the life of an animal anywhere close to a human's.
In general though, I think it's a waste to do these labs outside of AP classes since most kids not in AP Biology/Anatomy don't really give a shit so I'd rather use the resources somewhere else.
In general though, I think it's a waste to do these labs outside of AP classes since most kids not in AP Biology/Anatomy don't really give a shit so I'd rather use the resources somewhere else.
Holy crap, I can't disagree with you any more strongly. What in the world gives you the right to 'rule over animals'? I'd go on, but Jrrrrr basically said everything I would.
People like you scare the crap out of me. And that post you made was preposterous.
I don't think dissection should be done at the middle or high school level. Anything higher and it becomes almost necessary. As for what can be killed and what shouldn't be, I have a very simple view on it. I don't like anything dying, but if I'd eat it then I'm alright with it being killed for dissection purposes. Frog is pretty much the line there. But still, no reason to just kill stuff to show a bunch of middle schoolers animal guts.
Dissection CAN also endanger species, you know. Some time back the common Indian frog (Rana tigrina) was endangered -- a legal order was then issued to prohibit all dissections of that frog all over the country. So now bio students cut worms and cockroaches instead. Still, I agree with the OP that it's pretty much unnecessary at high-school level.
Uhm, it's in the Bible, but you will probably not think that argument is valid so I'll come with another argument:
Because we can!
Again, ruling means that we should treat them responsibly, but we can still take from the animals what we need. Food, and in this case, use them as a study object if it is necessary and if there are no real alternatives.
So, instead of examining a gorilla, we could take an alternative by examining a rat or a worm.
I personally don't consider computer animations real alternatives but some people do.
Oh, and what's wrong with examining one worm. Just be honest, do you really care if I kill a worm? I bet you don't.
And if you disagree with me that much, I assume you are a vegetarian? If not, what would give us the right to kill animals? Or plants, for that matter.
Those who are at the top of the foodchain can do with the lower ones whatever they want. And there's nothing anyone can do about it. It's simply that way.
Because we can and there are no alternatives. Read the post.
absolutely agreeing with akuchi here; i remember AA cited the same argument in the vegetarianism thread and Brain presented a pretty suitable, substantially more logical reply to him.
just because you can doesn't legitimize anything, dude.
oh and
just because you can doesn't legitimize anything, dude.
oh and
um, foodchain?
because it isn't just one worm, read my post, dissection can and has created endangerment(sp?) for species.
So you think that worms will become endangered species because of dissection?
why not? few decades ago, i expect the same rationale was given before frogs were given the green light for dissection. dissection can turn into something a bit like genocide, imo.
EDIT: sir, i just looked up your backlog itt
EDIT: sir, i just looked up your backlog itt
while your school might be unique in dissecting dead animals, i have seen classmates work on live specimens. you might argue that their life isn't worth it (oh wait you already did), but subjecting a living being with whatever intelligence is something that repugnates me. call it my opinion if you will, i can bet it isn't mine alone.
how do you propose to logically explain that?
I would also like to know.
This "we should destroy animals and nature because they cant do anything about it" idea is absurd. Have you ever heard of a predator/prey relationship? If we kill everything off, there is nothing left to sustain us. I am personally all for eating animals, but there needs to be a balance or else we die. The fact that we raise so many animals and crops for consumption, yet there is a worldwide food crisis, on top of the environmental crisis and global warming, is evidence enough that your philosophy is only good in the short-term for a very small amount of people. There are just too many people that need to eat too much on a very small planet. The "we inherit the earth as the top of the food chain" is not a mindset that will sustain the human race for another century without a very large population decrease.
There are alternatives.
Okay, I decided to cut your two posts into small bits and reply, as obviously this isn't getting anywhere.
I can't give any arguments against idiocy! no offense
When considering what we need, we should also look in the future. So we shouldn't only consider what we need now, but also what next generations will need.
If you really think worms are going to be an extinct species because of this...
I can't give any arguments against idiocy! no offense
We should only do it if necessary. I believe that it is, in this case.
How can you logically explain that all life forms are equal despite intelligence?
I like your reply. However, you seem, like many others, not to have read my post. I specifically said that it means that we shouldn't go kill them all, but that we should be allowed to take what we need, and that it should be in proportion.
When considering what we need, we should also look in the future. So we shouldn't only consider what we need now, but also what next generations will need.
given that earthworms reproduce at a slower rate than frogs (which come in hundreds, wiki frogspawn), i believe there isn't a lot of idiocy in my argument.
right to life has nothing to do with intelligence. again, morality slips into the discussion, something i've been trying to avoid in my arguments, but if "blah blah bible said we rule", then i suppose it isn't an absolute crime on my part.
correct me, but did you not say that we should take it "because we can"? wasn't that when i jumped into the the argument?
the only reason i posted this was because i was somewhat offended at being called an idiot for an argument that did not strictly merit such a reply. believe me when i say that i have moderated my own post a couple of times to filter anything offending in it -- there were many.
i now step out of this discussion for good, i've posted more than what'd be deemed sufficient in it.