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 is not unnecessary. Dissections have led to numerous discoveries as to how the bodies of certain animals (including humans) work. It is far from useless, it allows us to get a very close hand-on look at the organs of an animal.
Yep, thus you eat hamburgers, hot dogs, meat, and pretty much anything else edible, right? This proves your moral value.For the slavery argument, it's the principle that matters.
I don't see why people say "it's just a worm", because a life is a life in my eyes. Maybe you can say, "it's just a sponge", maybe you can say "it's just an insect", maybe you can say "it's just a rodent". But then you move further up the evolutionary scale, to things like cats, dogs, horses, monkeys. What justification can you give making a line to divide those animals that are "just a _____" and ones whose lives are valuable? It's purely arbitrary, unless you can provide a trait that the "valuable" animals have that the "invaluable" animals don't, and whether or not that trait is sole reason enough to justify to make killing acceptable or unacceptable.
And to make things clear, I definitely view a human's life as more important than a rat's or whatever. I just think that it shouldn't be acceptable to kill that animal's life that is less valuable than a human, for the sole purpose of "education" (glorified curiosity) unless that information would be valuable to the person obtaining it. Not to mention there are perfectly viable alternatives.
"Might is right", right?
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.Originally Posted by Fat Blissey ODonnell
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 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?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.
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.Stuff
Uhm, it's in the Bible, but you will probably not think that argument is valid so I'll come with another argument: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.
Because we can and there are no alternatives. Read the post.okay as much as I'm in favour of dissection (when actually done for scientific purposes and not for a group of shitty bored kids in a biology class) "because we can" is the shittiest, most fucked up argument ever. Really.
"I'm going to go rape, kill, and eat a baby. Why? Because I can!"
um, foodchain?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 it isn't just one worm, read my post, dissection can and has created endangerment(sp?) for species.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.
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.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.
how do you propose to logically explain that?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 would also like to know.how do you propose to logically explain that?
If you really think worms are going to be an extinct species because of this...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.
We should only do it if necessary. I believe that it is, in this case.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 can you logically explain that all life forms are equal despite intelligence?how do you propose to logically explain that?
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.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.
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.If you really think worms are going to be an extinct species because of this...
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.How can you logically explain that all life forms are equal despite intelligence?
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?but that we should be allowed to take what we need, and that it should be in proportion.