Your thoughts on animal rights [Archive]

BeardofPants

09-04-2002, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil

That's completely not true. Animals constantly steal food from one another. Monkeys commit infanticide and they murder and also wage war against other monkey "tribes". Many animals will eject other members of their 'clan" for various reasons - look at the way lon wolves are treated among their own kind. The other animals are no different than us and we're no different than them. We're all animals.

Monkeys?! It's APES, you infidel! ;)

I believe Ozzie was talking about intent, and the only animal that has shown an action weighed with "evil" (in the loosest sense of the word) intent, has been the chimpanzee; rapes, and murders, in fact.

Bonobos on the other hand, use sex for everything. We should be more like them.

But yes, we are nothing more than animals. Big brains are overrated. The only reason we do so well, is because we breed like rabbits, and are very adaptable.

osszie

09-04-2002, 08:43 PM

in response to jerseydevil:

yes but we are the only race of creature on this planet that will willingly commit genocide and will take a life in the name of "science". We will test a toxic substance on animals, even though we know it may kill them.

my point was that nothing else on this earth kills for no reason. Darwin may have been correct with his "survival of the fittest" theory..........but wot happens when the fittest become the absolute........i.e. us...........wot happens is that we take absolute control (we are after, after all, the race with no natural preditors).

BeardofPants

09-04-2002, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by osszie
my point was that nothing else on this earth kills for no reason. Darwin may have been correct with his "survival of the fittest" theory..........but wot happens when the fittest become the absolute........i.e. us...........wot happens is that we take absolute control (we are after, after all, the race with no natural preditors).

Actually, that's a really bad analogy. In those examples, there are motivations behind the deaths.

And "Survival of the fittest" was coined by Darwins grandfather, not Darwin. "Selection for the best possible fitness" is Darwin.

And we do have natural predators.

osszie

09-04-2002, 09:04 PM

perdanticsim......thy name is BoP.....thank the gods you're forcing me to use my brain;)

yes murders do exist in the animal kingdon (the minx as I have mentioned, and the chimpanzee).
Tho the reasons behind those killings are far more simple (from an animalistic point of view) than the many reasons man kills other species (please view my earlier post as regards to our killing animals "in the name of science")

I was aware that "survival of the fittest" was a phrase coined by Darwins grandfather (Darwin himself being a naturally (hehe) shy person) and postponing his own publications for many years before he used the phrase after his grandfathers death. I used the phrase here as it is usually connected with Darwins work.

We do have natural predators?........news to me......I've lived perfectly happily all my life (a blessing) knowing that I would not be killed for no other reason than my own actions.:)

BeardofPants

09-04-2002, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by osszie
perdanticsim......thy name is BoP.....thank the gods you're forcing me to use my brain;)

Why thank you. ;)

Osszie
Tho the reasons behind those killings are far more simple (from an animalistic point of view) than the many reasons man kills other species

Are they? More simple?

Think carefully on this one.

Osszie
I used the phrase here as it is usually connected with Darwins work.

Yeah, it's a pet peeve of mine. Mostly because it's not really applicable in the sense that it implies. But don't get me started on that. ;)

We do have natural predators?........news to me......I've lived perfectly happily all my life (a blessing) knowing that I would not be killed for no other reason than my own actions.:)

Well, it really depends on where you live.

One could argue that the natural predator for the human is... the human.

Humans are still susceptible to predation. Just maybe not in residential western society... unless you count housewives! ;)

jerseydevil

09-04-2002, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by osszie
in response to jerseydevil:

yes but we are the only race of creature on this planet that will willingly commit genocide and will take a life in the name of "science". We will test a toxic substance on animals, even though we know it may kill them.

my point was that nothing else on this earth kills for no reason. Darwin may have been correct with his "survival of the fittest" theory..........but wot happens when the fittest become the absolute........i.e. us...........wot happens is that we take absolute control (we are after, after all, the race with no natural preditors).

The only reason other creatures don't "take a life in the name of science" is because they don't have the knowledge and the brain.

Also - we have a ton of natural predators - our brain has just compensated and we have invented things that put us up at the top. But I dare you to walk into a lion's den or bear cave without a weapon.

I personally have no problem with using animals to better the lives of mankind. Sorry - but that's how I feel. At the same time - it did not bother me one single bit with the original Planet of the Apes that Zera did experiments on humans and disected them. Many people I know hated the movies because it takes a hard look at that - as well as religion.

If you want modern medicines and cancer drugs and HIV drugs and everything else- then we have to use animals - or else get a bunch of humans. If anyone is against animal experimentation and feels we should not use them - then I would expect those people to put their money where their mouth is and volunteer for the battery of experiments that is required for a drug to go through initial testing. Of course most of them will die - but it will keep the worlds human population in check and it is for a good cause anyway.

BeardofPants

09-04-2002, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I personally have no problem with using animals to better the lives of mankind.... <snip> but it will keep the worlds human population in check and it is for a good cause anyway.

I DO have a problem with it; BUT I realise that at the moment, given our technology, that we need to. Only in medical research though. I dislike the idea of cosmetics being tested on animals.

Furthermore, is it really a "good cause"? Humans are parasitic. We strangle life very much like parasites. I don't know if I would call this a good cause.

jerseydevil

09-04-2002, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I DO have a problem with it; BUT I realise that at the moment, given our technology, that we need to. Only in medical research though. I dislike the idea of cosmetics being tested on animals.

Furthermore, is it really a "good cause"? Humans are parasitic. We strangle life very much like parasites. I don't know if I would call this a good cause.

Well then what's your recommendation? Everything we use has to be determined safe for humans first. Do you use makeup? I noticed that you only said you "dislike the idea of cosmetics being tested on animals." I'm wondering if you dislike it - but your not completely against it - because maybe you don't want to go blind from lack of study on eyeliner or get mouth sores from lip stick.

Why do you feel humans are parasitic? You seem to view everything that mankind does as being evil. It's sort of funny and sad at the same time. We also save and protect many animals too. We are the only species that can also think about instituting things that will save an animal from extinction. Humans aren't the only animal that causes another species to go extinct - but we are the only one that can conciously and DOES conciously do things to prevent it.

BeardofPants

09-04-2002, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Do you use makeup? I noticed that you only said you "dislike the idea of cosmetics being tested on animals." I'm wondering if you dislike it - but your not completely against it - because maybe you don't want to go blind from lack of study on eyeliner or get mouth sores from lip stick.

I am against it. Completely. Make up is not a necessity (anymore).

I wear make up on occasion, but I only buy products that aren't animal tested. Many big companies now (like Loreal) use a type of synthetic skin to test their products on. That's fine by me.

JD
Why do you feel humans are parasitic? You seem to view everything that mankind does as being evil.

Don't put words in my mouth, JD. I'm coming at this from a completely biological point of view. Remember, I'm not a big fan of the good vs evil concept... that suggests an ideological system that I don't subscribe to. First, and foremost, I swing towards science. Humans, in every sense of the word, are parasitic. That does not mean, however, that we are not capable of "good."

And as you know, humans are responsible for more extinctions than any other factor.

Duddun

09-04-2002, 09:40 PM

It isn't a good cause if we really want to test things we should test them on our own race not other animals.

Starr Polish

09-04-2002, 09:51 PM

While I am against animal testing for things like cosmetics and toiltetries, since we have other methods that are just as if not more effective, I am not completely against animal testing.

If it has to do with research involving things like cancer and genetic diseases, it doesn't really bother me. This is mostly because this could actually benefit us in a way that is more than petty, unlike cosmetic testing.

Hmm...I'm reminded of an experiment done on rats. One set of rats were exposed to hard rock/metal music constantly, and another were exposed to classical music constantly (and then, of coures, your control). The rats that listened to the classical music got through mazes faster and their intelligence rose.

They didn't get a change to test the hard rock/metal rats, because they ate each other.

jerseydevil

09-04-2002, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I am against it. Completely. Make up is not a necessity (anymore).

I wear make up on occasion, but I only buy products that aren't animal tested. Many big companies now (like Loreal) use a type of synthetic skin to test their products on. That's fine by me.

Fake skin - that was testable is very new - it's also still very expensive. As cost come down - that will be the standard way to test makeup and other products. Maybe even someday we'll be able to grow organs that we can do some initial medical testing before moving onto the animal testing.

Don't put words in my mouth, JD.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I said - "You seem to view everything that mankind does as being evil." It's just an observation I've made - whether you feel it's a right or wrong one - doesn't mean I was putting words in your mouth.

I'm coming at this from a completely biological point of view. Remember, I'm not a big fan of the good vs evil concept... that suggests an ideological system that I don't subscribe to. First, and foremost, I swing towards science. Humans, in every sense of the word, are parasitic. That does not mean, however, that we are not capable of "good."

Well then by science - we have evolved into a parasitic creature - if you only look at it in scientific terms. And if we are parasitic - then every creature on earth - given the oppurtunity would be parasitic. Which in essence is true - we all live off of each other.

And as you know, humans are responsible for more extinctions than any other factor.
I disagree with that. I don't think anyone can state one way or the other whether humans cause more extinctions than any other force. I think a lot of fanatical environmentalists would like people to believe we do however.

BeardofPants

09-04-2002, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well then by science - we have evolved into a parasitic creature - if you only look at it in scientific terms. And if we are parasitic - then every creature on earth - given the oppurtunity would be parasitic. Which in essence is true - we all live off of each other.

Yep. I wouldn't say that we evolved into it though. I would argue that hominids were always parasitic.

2. (Bot. & Zo["o]l.) Of or pertaining to parasites; living on, or deriving nourishment from, some other living animal or plant. See Parasite, 2 & 3.

JD
I disagree with that. I don't think anyone can state one way or the other whether humans cause more extinctions than any other force. I think a lot of fanatical environmentalists would like people to believe we do however.

Well, let me rephrase it then. There are MORE extinctions associated with the intervention of hominids, than at any other time.

jerseydevil

09-04-2002, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by BeardofPants

Well, let me rephrase it then. There are MORE extinctions associated with the intervention of hominids, than at any other time.

Tell that to the dinosaurs then. :) And all the other animals and plants and trees that were killed at that time.

BeardofPants

09-04-2002, 10:11 PM

Okay, okay, apart from Dinosaurs! ;)

BeardofPants

09-04-2002, 10:13 PM

Edit to above: should be mass extinctions. :o :D

As the human population grows and our demand for natural resources increases, more and more habitats are devastated. Today, we may be losing 30,000 species a year -- a rate much faster than at any time since the last great extinction 65 million years ago that wiped out most of the dinosaurs. Given that an unknown "catatrophe" (no, not smoking! ;)) was responsible for that lot of extinctions, I hardly think that it's comparable to the mass extinctions leading up to the current era.

Better? :)

Rána Eressëa

09-04-2002, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by osszie
it's a shame that they don't steal, lie, cheat, rape, murder (with the exception of mink), go to war, or conciously treat each other with evil intent:mad:

Many animals steal, many murder, some of them rape, and they almost all fight (battles and such).

Originally posted by Starr Polish
While I am against animal testing for things like cosmetics and toiltetries, since we have other methods that are just as if not more effective, I am not completely against animal testing.

If it has to do with research involving things like cancer and genetic diseases, it doesn't really bother me. This is mostly because this could actually benefit us in a way that is more than petty, unlike cosmetic testing.

Humans should test it on themselves, especially if they tend to use it on themselves.

jerseydevil

09-04-2002, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Edit to above: should be mass extinctions. :o :D

As the human population grows and our demand for natural resources increases, more and more habitats are devastated. Today, we may be losing 30,000 species a year -- a rate much faster than at any time since the last great extinction 65 million years ago that wiped out most of the dinosaurs. Given that an unknown "catatrophe" (no, not smoking! ;)) was responsible for that lot of extinctions, I hardly think that it's comparable to the mass extinctions leading up to the current era.

Better? :)

Back peddler. :)

I don't really trust the numbers - we have no idea. Where did you get that number from? I'm not saying that we don't cause extinctions.

osszie

09-04-2002, 10:36 PM

ok, ok, folks........there was a subject to the thread up there^^^^
:D

geez start another thread;)

and (as a quick p.s).......thanks for the info:)

ooh my brain hurts;)

BeardofPants

09-04-2002, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Back peddler. :)

I don't really trust the numbers - we have no idea. Where did you get that number from? I'm not saying that we don't cause extinctions.

And you never backpeddal? :p

It is an avg. estimate that I pulled off a number of sites. A conservative estimate, I might add.

I don't trust numbers either, BUT these figures are at least semi-observable. *shrug*

jerseydevil

09-04-2002, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by BeardofPants
And you never backpeddal? :p

It is an avg. estimate that I pulled off a number of sites. A conservative estimate, I might add.

I don't trust numbers either, BUT these figures are at least semi-observable. *shrug*

Nope- don't back peddle. Restate my opinions so they're more understandable sometimes. :)

What happens when a previous species evolves into a more refined species and the other one dies out? There have been many species that humans have declared extinct and have rediscovered.

There was a resent episode in Washington where members of the EPA - made up of environmental fanatics - put hair of a endangered animal on trees to prevent humans from occupying the area. When the samples went to the lab for testing - it was determined that the animal was in a local zoo. Afterward they claimed they just wanted to test the lab and make sure they were reliable.

osszie -
Yeah - I know this doesn't deal with the topic. :D

BeardofPants

09-04-2002, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
There have been many species that humans have declared extinct and have rediscovered.

These few instances are FAR outnumbered by the rate of mass extinctions. Like it or not, humans are either directly or indirectly responsible for them. Now, this thread is going on at the xenite forum as well, and someone posted something that I thought was valid to this argument.

Steve Faust:
... truely believe in the wild animal trade because their habitat is rapidly disappearing. I spent some time in the wilds of Guyana, South America and believed man would never spoil the region where I'd encamped. Wrong! All the beautiful Macaws are gone now because a Japanese company came in and cut down all the palms to make a million a day selling canned heart of palm to their clients. Without the palms, there is no fruit upon which the Macaws survive. Exported animals often become breeding stock. I know that with regard to reptiles, there are more of many species in domestic breeding colonies than in the wild. Some don't even exist in the wild anymore and breeders, motivated by profit, maintain genetically viable populations. Zoos don't.

BeardofPants

09-04-2002, 11:11 PM

JD:
What happens when a previous species evolves into a more refined species and the other one dies out?

This is not mass extinction. Either way, the extinctions occur as a process of being filtered out of the breeding population over millions of years, rather than just "dying out" suddenly. Depending on the criteria, the ones with less desirable traits simply find it harder to attract mates to produce viable offspring, or find it harder to adapt to the changes within their ecosystem. Unless the changes are catastrophic, the organisms with the lesser fitness are filtered out gradually.

jerseydevil

09-04-2002, 11:12 PM

Here is what ABCNews had on about the episode in Washington.

The Canada lynx is getting some people very excited. An environmental
group burned down a ski lodge in Vail because they thought it MIGHT
threaten the lynx.

There are tens of thousands of lynx throughout North America, but because
the bureaucrats weren't sure there were any in southern Washington state,
they commissioned a million-dollar study to find out.

They placed pieces of carpet soaked with a catnip mixture on trees, hoping
a lynx would then rub up against them and leave some fur. Sure enough --
samples the biologists sent to the lab contained hairs from a Canada lynx!

This is a frightening prospect for people who like using the land.
Finding a threatened species can set in motion a series of events that can
wreck your life if you're a rancher or farmer or just someone who wants to
drive in the woods. It's a reason lots of people in southern Washington
are scared of the government's environmental police.

As land-rights activist Mike Paulson put it, "We basically say if you
have an endangered species in your area, we are going to take your
livelihood away, we're going to destroy your communities, and we're going
to make it very difficult for your families to survive."

That didn't happen this time, because it turned out the government's
biologist were caught cheating! The lynx hair sent to the lab came from a
lynx that lives in a cage, miles away from where the biologists claimed
they found the hair. How could this happen?

Jim Beers, a Fish and Wildlife biologist for 31 years, says his agency
changed from promoting science to pushing what some believe is fanatical
environmentalism. Now he says the agency is "staffed with environmental
radical activists" who will twist facts until they get the results they
want -- and what they really want is to ban people from forests.

"Once you establish that there are any lynx in the area," Beers says, "the
areas in between suddenly become very urgent to not allow road to be
built, not allow the ski slopes to come in ... not allow grazing ...
ultimately, not to let you or I drive our wives and kids in for a picnic."

The biologists do have an explanation; they weren't trying to cheat, they
say, they were just testing the labs to make sure they could actually
identify lynx fur.

Beers replies: "That's the same as you telling me that you caught them
walking out of the bank with money and they said, 'Oh, we were just seeing
if the system works here, we were going to return it tomorrow.'"

Were the biologists fired for cheating? No. How often do governments
fire anyone? They were "verbally counseled," but they are still on the
job. It makes me wonder what other parts of their science we don't know
the truth about.

That's one of the reasons why i would have to see where the 30,000 number is coming from before saying I believe it.

BeardofPants

09-04-2002, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
That's one of the reasons why i would have to see where the 30,000 number is coming from before saying I believe it.

Fair enough.

I just did a google search. I, by no means, say that these figures are reliable. They are just estimates.

Either way, whether the figures are reliable or not, they DO tell a story about several species being lost irretrievably every year. And profiteering is largely responsible for most of them. :(

jerseydevil

09-04-2002, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Fair enough.

I just did a google search. I, by no means, say that these figures are reliable. They are just estimates.

Either way, whether the figures are reliable or not, they DO tell a story about several species being lost irretrievably every year. And profiteering is largely responsible for most of them. :(

Well then people should get on Brazil's case and other countries. What the companies do - although in many instances I disagree - is not illegal. Companies main purpose is provide a product or service and in return to make a profit from it. The Brazilian rainforests need to be protected by Brazil - people shouldn't expect companies to save them. But one of the reasons why Brazil and other countries allow the rain forest to be clear cut - is because they profit from it.

Duddun

09-04-2002, 11:33 PM

If you want modern medicines and cancer drugs and HIV drugs and everything else- then we have to use animals - or else get a bunch of humans. If anyone is against animal experimentation and feels we should not use them - then I would expect those people to put their money where their mouth is and volunteer for the battery of experiments that is required for a drug to go through initial testing. Of course most of them will die - but it will keep the worlds human population in check and it is for a good cause anyway.

Imagine if we were the animals and we were being killed from being tested on stuff that humans were scared to do on themselves.

BeardofPants

09-04-2002, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well then people should get on Brazil's case and other countries.

Yes. But. Where do you point the blame? It is not just Brazil, as you pointed out. Contrary to belief, it is not just the developing countries that are responsible. Europe, New Zealand, Australia, America: these countries are all pulling the puppet strings as well, in the case of deforestation, and destroying habitats.

The question is, how can we make this planet more sustainable without "destroying peoples livelihoods"?

I despair, I really do. It seems like there is nothing we can do to get around it. Even those who try and avoid certain products, can't guarantee that they're leading a completely guilt free life. I don't eat meat. I don't buy cosmetics that are tested on animals, but how do I know exactly what I'm impacting upon in my puny little life? I'm just as responsible as the next person for my methane and carbon emissions. I might not drive a car, but some of the aerosols I use are damaging to the environment, and therefore damaging to some habitats.

Oh god, I think I just depressed myself at the futility of it all, again....

jerseydevil

09-04-2002, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by Duddun
Imagine if we were the animals and we were being killed from being tested on stuff that humans were scared to do on themselves.

You have to look further - I already said that it didn't bother me when I mentioned the orginal Planet of the Apes. In the original movie - Zera discected humans and did experiments on them. To me - I just viewed it as they were the superior being.

jerseydevil

09-04-2002, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I despair, I really do. It seems like there is nothing we can do to get around it. Even those who try and avoid certain products, can't guarantee that they're leading a completely guilt free life. I don't eat meat. I don't buy cosmetics that are tested on animals, but how do I know exactly what I'm impacting upon in my puny little life? I'm just as responsible as the next person for my methane and carbon emissions. I might not drive a car, but some of the aerosols I use are damaging to the environment, and therefore damaging to some habitats.

Not to mention that the computer and monitor you are using have many toxic by products - all technology does. These all go into the environment after they are disposed of.

By the way - I agree with your statement here.

The question is, how can we make this planet more sustainable without "destroying peoples livelihoods"?

Too many environmentalists are of the attitude that no matter how it affects other's lives - if it destroys an animal it's wrong. There is no grey area. We have to work on finding a balance.

BeardofPants

09-04-2002, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Not to mention that the computer and monitor you are using have many toxic by products - all technology does. These all go into the environment after they are disposed of.

...and the refrigerator, and my pot (as in pots and pans, not the illegal stuff) burning, and my tv, and farming, etc, etc, and so forth. *sigh*

These are all having an indirect impact upon habitation, and consequently, are impacting upon species within their niches. Oh well. There's always speciation....

And yes, I agree with YOUR statement: we have to find a balance. It is madness if we try to cater to any one direction more than the other. However, given the choice between a species dying out, and being lost forever, and someone losing profit, well, I'd go with the species that is dying out. BUT, I think that in cases like this, there should be some kind of state funding that could be used to help out the persons effected, judged on a case by case scenario. Obviously, a corporation could afford to sink costs a little better than say a farmer, who loses his land.

BeardofPants

09-04-2002, 11:58 PM

I just thought of something else.

In New Zealand, the state often buys out farmers who have wetland niches on their land. This is also true of coastal regions, that contribute to marine reserves. There should be more funding to this sort of thing.

jerseydevil

09-05-2002, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by BeardofPants
However, given the choice between a species dying out, and being lost forever, and someone losing profit, well, I'd go with the species that is dying out. BUT, I think that in cases like this, there should be some kind of state funding that could be used to help out the persons effected, judged on a case by case scenario. Obviously, a corporation could afford to sink costs a little better than say a farmer, who loses his land.

Why do you think that? All either one does is pass their cost onto the end user. Do you think that when people steal from a store that they just eat that? No - the cost gets passed onto the consumer. Also - where does the government get their money from - from tax payers. So then what you're saying is that we should be taxed because some company wants to plant something in the Amazon and can't - or some farmer is going to be kicked off his farm because an endangered field mouse is found living there. There has to be a better way.

BeardofPants

09-05-2002, 12:09 AM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
There has to be a better way.

I hope so.

I'm just stating my opinion though. I'd rather pay higher taxes to work with what we've got, than pander to the corporations. That's just me. *shrug*

jerseydevil

09-05-2002, 12:12 AM

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I just thought of something else.

In New Zealand, the state often buys out farmers who have wetland niches on their land. This is also true of coastal regions, that contribute to marine reserves. There should be more funding to this sort of thing.

We have something similar - not necessarily to protect a particular animal - but to protect the wilderness and farms of NJ as a whole.

Since 1961, the NJDEP Green Acres Program has protected more than 471,291 acres of open space and developed hundreds of public parks, bringing the statewide system of preserved open space and farmland to more than 1,144,871 acres.

Green Acres uses public funds (bond issues and legislatively dedicated open space funds (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/greenacres/preservation.htm)) to support land protection and park development throughout the State. Green Acres provides funding through the State Land Acquisition Program (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/greenacres/preservation.htm), the Local Assistance Program and the Nonprofit Assistance Program (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/greenacres/trust.htm).

The State Land Acquisition Program preserves land through purchase in fee, conservation easements, and donations. This land becomes part of New Jersey's system of state parks and forests (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/forestry/parks/parkindx.htm), natural areas, and wildlife management areas (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/). The State targets land along waterways, environmentally sensitive land, recreational land, trails and trail connectors, historic resources, land adjacent to State open space holdings, and land that links protected green spaces to support a green infrastructure in New Jersey.

The Local Assistance Program provides funds to help local governments preserve open space and develop parks. Local government acquisitions are funded with grants and loans. Park development projects are funded with grants and loans for Urban Aid developments, and loan funding for non-urban projects.

The Nonprofit Assistance Program provides matching grant funding for land acquisition to qualifying nonprofit organizations. Additionally, matching funds are provided to nonprofit organizations for park development in urban aid municipalities.

Green Acres Land Acquisition and Park Development: Acres and Expenditures May 1, 1997 - September 30, 2001 (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/greenacres/reports.htm)

emplynx

09-05-2002, 05:41 PM

KILL THE BABIES! SAVE THE WHALES!
Honistly, animal rightes are redicuolious. Think of you favorite animal. How would you feel is a *insert favorite animal here* was being born and during the birth process, the doctor jammed some sissors into the animals skull and made a hole, and then used a vacuum-like device to suck it's brains out? Well, it happens to human babies every day...
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/ASMF/asmf10.html

BeardofPants

09-05-2002, 05:44 PM

And as per usual Emplynx comes along, oversimplifies everything, and drags everything off topic. :rolleyes:

*Insert suitable flame here.*

Earniel

09-06-2002, 05:09 AM

Me thinks that Emplynx and JD only know the extreme environmentalists. No offence meant but there are a lot more of honest environmentalists who devote their lives to protect biodiversity without infringing on the livelyhood of the human population. Don't judge them all because of a couple of fanatics.

jerseydevil

09-06-2002, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by Eärniel
Me thinks that Emplynx and JD only know the extreme environmentalists. No offence meant but there are a lot more of honest environmentalists who devote their lives to protect biodiversity without infringing on the livelyhood of the human population. Don't judge them all because of a couple of fanatics.

I'm not. I consider myself an "environmentalist". But I'm balanced. I don't consider it an environment or nothing attitude like other people. For instance I get my electricity from Green Mountain (http://www.greenmountain.com/services/NJ/index.jsp) and I recycle. But I also don't agree with outlawing SUVs - although I think they're gas guzzling monstrosaties. If everyone did even a little bit - by not littering and trying to reduce their own pollution - then we wouldn't need so many regulations on things.

But in my opinion Green Peace is too fanatical and Sierra Club can be very fanatical too - especially in the west.

Spock

09-06-2002, 11:55 AM

As a human animal, I think all other animals have the right to be served with the proper sauce.:D

Elvellon

09-06-2002, 12:49 PM

All either one does is pass their cost onto the end user. Do you think that when people steal from a store that they just eat that? No - the cost gets passed onto the consumer. Also - where does the government get their money from - from tax payers. So then what you're saying is that we should be taxed because some company wants to plant something in the Amazon and can't - or some farmer is going to be kicked off his farm because an endangered field mouse is found living there. There has to be a better way.

So what we have in the end?

Costs, anyway you see it.
If you do protect the environment, we have to pay for it (as consumers and tax payers)
If you don’t protect the environment, we have to pay to clean the mess afterwards (as taxpayers, consumers or worse, with our health).

jerseydevil

09-06-2002, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Elvellon
So what we have in the end?

Costs, anyway you see it.
If you do protect the environment, we have to pay for it (as consumers and tax payers)
If you don’t protect the environment, we have to pay to clean the mess afterwards (as taxpayers, consumers or worse, with our health).

Well Oregon wants to put a mileage tax in place - which I was and am very much against. Yearly they would record the cars mileage and the owner would be charged for how much they drove. Some people have to drive to get to work - or drive on vacation. Oregon already has some of the highest gas prices in the country. Portland's public transportation system sucks (even though it's endorsed by the Sierra Club) - so you have to use your car. Portland also has the 7th worst traffic in the country. New York doesn't even make the top 10.

Government regulation on everything isn't always the way to go - as Portland so plainly demostrates. It develps HUGE inefficient and expensive bureaucracies.

New Jersey and several other northeast states are in lawsuits against several midwest states for the pollution that their power plants produce. Many people around the country feels that New Jersey is a highly polluted state - they don't realise that 1/3 of all our pllution comes from the power plants west of us.

The six Midwest states of Minnesota,Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio, described in this report, bear a special responsibility. These six states are home to 140 CO2 producing power plants that annually release about two percent of the planet’s total man-made CO2 , eight percent of the nation’s total man-made CO2 , and 25 percent of the CO2 released by power plants in the U.S. Two major Midwest power companies – American Electric Power and Cinergy – each contribute two and one percent of the nation’s total manmade CO2 emissions respectively. If the Midwest leads the U.S. in curbing its substantial electricity-related CO2 emissions, we can begin to steer our country’s course towards a solution that will benefit the Midwest and people around the world.

Climate Change and Midwest Power Plants (http://www.ehw.org/Climate_Change/MWClimate-LR.pdf)

Few of us think about our use of electricity in environmental terms. Yet from the perspective of overall environmental quality, these decisions are among the most important that we make. Power plants account for between one-fourth and two-thirds of the air pollutants that threaten public health, unleash acid rain and contribute to global warming. Of America's top fifty individual sources for three major air pollutants, all but one are power plants.

...

Aging Midwest power plants take advantage of their looser standards to steal markets from cleaner neighboring systems, and then add insult to injury by polluting the neighbors' air. Increasingly, Congressmen and Governors from the injured states are resisting this kind of unfair competition and pollution dumping. They are asking Congress to make sure that everybody who is out prospecting for electricity sales is following the same environmental rules.

...

In addition to supporting responsible state and federal action, individual electricity users can attack power plant pollution more directly. In many states, one feature of the new electricity reforms is the ability for the first time to choose your electricity supplier. Customers will be able to replace their traditional utility with a new supplier, and they will be able to shop around for electricity sources that minimize pollution.

....

The Natural Resources Defense Council recently ranked the nation's power plant owners by carbon dioxide emissions per dollar of revenue, focusing on the pollutant that dominates the international campaign against global warming (carbon dioxide). The biggest emitters produced more than twenty times as much pollution per dollar of sales as the utilities at the head of the NRDC list. Measured by this ratio, companies like Public Service of Indiana, Ohio Power, Oregon's Pacificorp and the Tennessee Valley Authority emitted more than ten times as much carbon dioxide as the Bonneville Power Administration, California's Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Connecticut Light and Power, Boston Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric, the New York Power Authority and New York City's Consolidated Edison.

All Electricity is Not Created Equal
Efforts to bring competition to utility industry mean that both government and consumers can act to ensure cleaner power (http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/orcequal.asp)

jerseydevil

09-06-2002, 02:25 PM

This is one of the reasons I'm against electric cars. True the cars aren't producing pollution - but the power plants that produce the electricity to recharge the batteries do. All electric cars do is just pass the pollution on to the power plants - where most people don't see it. Hybrid cars (such as the Honda Civic Hybrid (http://www.hondacars.com/models/model_overview.asp?ModelName=Civic+Hybrid))- although still using gas for some power - recharge their own batteries (they never have to be plugged in). See how it works at How Things Work (http://www.howstuffworks.com/hybrid-car.htm) website. Once the technology improves - the cars will come down in price. However, I don't think they are out of range (the Honda Civic Hybrid starts at $19,500) - considering the tax rebates and the savings in gas.

People also don't have to buy SUVs that only need to conform to truck regulations that get 20mpg versus a car which is required to get 27mpg. Everyone that has an SUV or truck has chosen to ignore the fact that they are polluting the environment.

I choose to pay extra to have nonpolluting electricity. New Jersey has given me the choice through the New Jersey Energy Choice Program (http://www.njenergychoice.com/home.html) and I have chosen. Many others - if they truly care about the environment can do the same or similar things. People don't have to be dictated to by the government. Also - New Jersey as well as the federal government give tax deductions for buying alternative fuel vehicles - Alt. Fuel Vehicle Rebate (http://www.bpu.state.nj.us/wwwroot/energy/altfuelbrochure.pdf).

Green Mountain (http://www.greenmountain.com) just opened up a new solar farm in New Jersey last month. It's on top of the roof of a Home Depot or similar store. This is a good use of wasted roof space and it means that trees and land does not have to be destroyed to make way for solar farms.

Blackheart

09-06-2002, 02:55 PM

Animals have the right to be eaten.

And skinned. And subjected to tests.

Humans are animals.

yum.

Elvellon

09-06-2002, 03:35 PM

JD, That reminds me how some extremist “ecologists” can be illogical. Around here we use dams to produce most our electric power (we actually export some of it to our neighbouring country, Spain). It is clean, non-polluting, and also allows us to make good water reserves. It would be expected they would see it at the very least as the “less evil” way of producing electricity right? Well, now they complain how the dams disrupt natural equilibrium, and demand they stop being built, and some even demand that a number of dams should be dismantled. Frankly, give me a break.:rolleyes:

emplynx

09-06-2002, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Spock
As a human animal, I think all other animals have the right to be served with the proper sauce.:D I like cats, lets exchange recipes!

jerseydevil

09-06-2002, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by Elvellon
JD, That reminds me how some extremist “ecologists” can be illogical. Around here we use dams to produce most our electric power (we actually export some of it to our neighbouring country, Spain). It is clean, non-polluting, and also allows us to make good water reserves. It would be expected they would see it at the very least as the “less evil” way of producing electricity right? Well, now they complain how the dams disrupt natural equilibrium, and demand they stop being built, and some even demand that a number of dams should be dismantled. Frankly, give me a break.:rolleyes:

That's the SAME exact thing that is happening in Oregon. Now the environmentalists are complaining that the dams are ruining the salmon runs. They've also demanded that some be removed and stop building new ones.

Dams are a major destroyer of salmon
During their downstream migration to the ocean, salmon are often killed by turbines or dam sluices. The slow water behind a dam makes fish more vulnerable to predators.

Official figures from the Northwest Power Planning Council indicate that the Columbia River dams kill the equivalent of between five million and 11 million adult salmon every year. Dams on the Columbia River, alone, have closed off 4000 miles of salmon habitat. The construction of the John Day Dam flooded the spawning ground of 30,000 fall chinook. Efforts to remove dams are finding more and more support as fish stocks continue to dwindle.

The Northwest Fisheries (http://www.efn.org/~forestry/chp3.1.html)

BeardofPants

09-06-2002, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by jerseydevil
But in my opinion Green Peace is too fanatical ...

I'm a greenpeace member. Not all of us a fanatical, thank you very much. :rolleyes:

jerseydevil

09-06-2002, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I'm a greenpeace member. Not all of us a fanatical, thank you very much. :rolleyes:

I know you're a Green Peace member :D As I said - they're fanatical. :D

BeardofPants

09-06-2002, 08:11 PM

I shall forevermore remember this moment of generalisation. And when I get to New Jersey I shall burn down your appartment. In an environmentally friendly way of course.

jerseydevil

09-06-2002, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I shall forevermore remember this moment of generalisation. And when I get to New Jersey I shall burn down your appartment. In an environmentally friendly way of course.

Well just as long as it's an environmentally friendly fire.

osszie

09-06-2002, 08:36 PM

They took me to the battlefield
Saw the mushroom clouds
Said 'I can see the colours
Even when my head is bowed'
And they showed me the destruction
The slaughter a la carte
And isn't nature wonderful
But is this art?

They took me to the hospital
And pulled aside the sheet
Said 'Look at that pulsating.
Just listen to the beat'
And they showed me the incision
Then took away the heart
And isn't nature wonderful
But is this art?

They took me to the scientist,
Who opened up a phial
He said 'This is only chicken pox
And rhino bile'
And they showed me what it did to mice
They said 'This is just the start'
And isn't nature wonderful
But is this art?

They took me to the tenement
And kicked down the door
They said:'Have you seen the copulation,
Practised by the poor
We select the ones to breed
Then we reject the part'
And isn't nature wonderful
But is this art?

geez I need to stop posting in here while under the influence;)

Erawyn

09-06-2002, 11:30 PM

We also save and protect many animals too.
I know this was said awhile ago, but it bothered me. They wouldn't need protecting in the first place if it wasn't for us. we're just trying to fix what we did in the past.

While i'm not against doing animal testing to do something like find a cure for cancer, smearing bleach in the eye of a rabbit (and rabbits have no tear ducts) really has no purpose imho.
Also i think it is extremely important for us to preserve as much natural habitat and wildlife as possible. It seems to me that people disassociate themselves with for lack of a better phrase, the natural world, but in reality we really can't (and i don't know why we would want to) survive without it. And this is sort of off topic but electric cars are a good idea. many people die from bad air quality (fossil fuel emissions) and i for one am sick of being told not to go outside because the air is yellow and i'll get dizzy if i breath it.

jerseydevil

09-06-2002, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by Erawyn
And this is sort of off topic but electric cars are a good idea. many people die from bad air quality (fossil fuel emissions) and i for one am sick of being told not to go outside because the air is yellow and i'll get dizzy if i breath it.

Electric cars only move the pollution generation from the car to the power plant. If you powerup the vehicle using an "outlet" that gets it's electricity from coal burning power plant then you're actually doing more harm than using a gas engine. Not to mention that the fuel cells still need to be disposed of.

Hydorgen cars would be good - but we don't have hydrogen stations. And they won't be built until there are sopme people with hydrogen cars. It's a catch 22. The east coast and west coast would probably get those stations before the midwest does. Which means that you wouldn't be able to drive too far beyond where you knew there was a station to fill up at. Makes the use of the car pretty limited unless it allows the use of gas too for emergencies.

cassiopeia

09-07-2002, 01:41 AM

I am referring to the original questions: what do I think of animal rights. I am very very strongly against animal cruelty of any kind. I would like to make some points about what people have said:

1. Animals do rape and kill, but they do it to preserve thier genes. Most of the time we do it for power, not for directly preserving our genes. Animals don't delibrately hurt others. Humans do. I saw on TV some teenagers push a sheep off a cliff. Why? It sickened me.

2. If your were really against animal testing (I am for silly things like cosmetics) for serious diseases, wouldn't you refuse treatment, not be yourself tested?

3. I don't think, say, hanging a dog up by it's neck is the same as someone having an abortion. Thats all I will say about that one.

Andúril

09-07-2002, 09:24 AM

I do not believe that any animals should have any rights.

And don't forget that humans are animals.

Andúril

09-07-2002, 09:38 AM

Emplonk:
Honistly, animal rightes are redicuolious.As is your spelling...

And no, I haven't misquoted here.More:
during the birth process, the doctor jammed some sissors into the animals skull and made a hole, and then used a vacuum-like device to suck it's brains out? Well, it happens to human babies every day...And? What?

Rána Eressëa

09-07-2002, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by cassiopeia
2. If your were really against animal testing (I am for silly things like cosmetics) for serious diseases, wouldn't you refuse treatment, not be yourself tested?

I think they do not need to make things that require testing. But I don't rule the society.

Originally posted by Anduril
I do not believe that any animals should have any rights.

And don't forget that humans are animals.

Did I mention how much I love you? :cool:

Andúril

09-07-2002, 02:40 PM

RE:
Did I mention how much I love you?:cool: No.

[confused look on face]Hmmmmm[/confused look on face]

Can I love you back?

Rána Eressëa

09-07-2002, 02:56 PM

As the evil spawn of you and BoP . . . yes.

Andúril

09-07-2002, 03:12 PM

And so shall it be.

Goddess BoP, Hardcore Pope Anduril, and their evil spawn, Rána Eressëa.

Erawyn

09-07-2002, 07:27 PM

If you powerup the vehicle using an "outlet" that gets it's electricity from coal burning power plant then you're actually doing more harm than using a gas engine.
More harm? meh i don't think so, because already there are many coal burning electricty plants, but eliminating exhaust from cars would make a huge difference to the health of the planet. And there are other ways to get electricity...

jerseydevil

09-08-2002, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by Erawyn
More harm? meh i don't think so, because already there are many coal burning electricty plants, but eliminating exhaust from cars would make a huge difference to the health of the planet. And there are other ways to get electricity...

Do you know how you get your electricity? Do you have a choice what power generation system you get your electicity? Most people don't have a choice on where they get their electricity. If you get your electricity from a coal powered plant - and you buy an electric car - most likely your whole area gets it's electricity from the same power plant - which means that coal would be used to power your car - not electricy (which is only the end product of the coal power plant).

People that stress the use of electric cars - only think of the end result of electricity - not the fact that the electric needs to be generated from some power plant.

Also - if more electricity is needed to power electric cars - then the power plants boost production. This causes more pollution - again just moving the pollution from the car to the power plant. Which, if it's a coal plant - produces more pollution than the gas car that the electric one replaced.

Erawyn

09-08-2002, 10:40 AM

Yes if electric cars became mainstream the coal plants of course would then become a larger problem then they are now. But if anyone felt the need to make an actual change for the better, there are other ways to supply those cars with electricity such as hydro-electricity, wind powered electricity etc.

BeardofPants

09-08-2002, 01:17 PM

We have hydro-dams. I'm afraid I must agree with JD on this one. Although carbon emissions (in my book) are less harmful than carbon monoxide, it is still one tradeoff for another evil, really. Although, I do see your point, Erawyn, in that coal plants are less harmful than the current situation. BUT this solution would still entail the depletion of precious earth resources. There has to be a better way. Hydro technology sounds better; but I'm holding out for teleportation! ;)

(Don't forget solar power!)

Sween

09-08-2002, 02:02 PM

theres allways geo thermal. Ok back on topic i allow the same rights that animals give to each other and that is none so animals fair have rights :D

Rána Eressëa

09-08-2002, 02:16 PM

All acts of "evil" any animal commits upon another animal are prosecutable only by the group of animals that are pissed of. And only if they can catch him/her. If an animal kills/harms someone (one of your own species or not) you love, you should be able to challenge them to hand-to-hand / hand-to-foot / foot-to-foot combat. Government, or any groups of laws, are to be terminated because those nosey bastards who developed them need to mind their own business and stop trying to control the world.

Sween

09-08-2002, 02:20 PM

my point is that animals dont worry about eating one another so we should not either. if animals were the smartest animals (and lets face it thats what keeps us at the top of the food chain) they would not afford us such libitys.

Rána Eressëa

09-08-2002, 02:23 PM

Almost all things worry about survival, so they can fight for it all they want, but I think humans have taken it too far. Banning the killing of your own species will someday lead to over-population, which will eventually kill us all because we'll run out of resources and supplies.

All other animals are smart: let the weak ones die; they just take up space any way.

Sween

09-08-2002, 02:26 PM

population size is a major problem. Is it china where they restrict the number of children you can have? thats not such a bad idea. The big problem is people are simply not dieing these days. My nan and grandad require full time care and attention from the NHS do we need to reconsider how long we let people live?

BeardofPants

09-08-2002, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by Sween
my point is that animals dont worry about eating one another so we should not either. if animals were the smartest animals (and lets face it thats what keeps us at the top of the food chain) they would not afford us such libitys.

Sure. We're omnivorous animals. Let us eat meat. This is not the problem though. The problems lie with culling too much food; wastage, etc, ensures that some of the populations are not having a chance to retain their numbers. The only animals that DO have a chance at this, are those in captivity. It seems that this is the only chance that animals have against us; to be useful in captivity, because those in the wild are slowly losing their niches, and their population numbers. It is possible that within our lifetime, the tiger will be lost forever; as with the croc, and other so-called predatorial animals. Only those in captivity are safe. The problem is that many animals do not breed very well in captivity. And is this what we really want for our children, and our childrens children? For them to only see these majestic creatures in captivity?

People are irresponsible with their culling; salmon are not having a chance to reproduce successfully, because fishermen, and salmon farmers are depleting the fish stocks by taking out the bigger individuals for commercialism - it is the bigger fish that lay more eggs.... this leads to fish stock depletion. Japanese still hunt endangered whale species. The cheeky buggers even come into the Antartic circle - where they're protected - and try and steal them. Niche depletion occurs everyday. In the Brazilian rainforest, forests the size of two rugby fields are being depleted every day. 30,000 species are being lost to us every year. I saw a tv show the other day ("Sapphire and Steel") and it's premise was that people 1500 years in the future had no use for animals at all, so there were none. Do we really want our world to be like this? I say, eat our meat; it's what made us get bigger brains in the first place (Wheeler hypothesis), but do it responsibly. Use our strengths, not just to our advantage, but for theirs as well. It is, afterall, on the backs of other animals, that our species has become so advantageous. So, let us thank them, not by killing them off, and wiping our their homes, but by trying to help out, by using our "power" wisely; by making intelligent decisions that are not just about us, but the animals we share this world with.

/* End tirade.

Earniel

09-08-2002, 04:04 PM

Well said BoP. :) You know your speech reminds me a bit of the elves from LOTR. They too try to keep their realms intact.

BeardofPants

09-08-2002, 04:14 PM

Thanks, Earniel. It is something I feel strongly about.

cassiopeia

09-08-2002, 07:15 PM

I agree with you BoP. Although I don't eat meat, I know it is natural and what helped get us to this stage. I don't like wild animals in captivity, but if thats the only way to ensure that they don't become extinct, then we have to do it. I despair at the loss and rainforests and such, but I don't think I can give up the luxuries in my life for it. I can't see how this destruction this can be stopped in the near future.

Erawyn

09-08-2002, 08:20 PM

That was great BoP:)
It's not that i think coal plants are less harmful, and i agree with JD that if we did switch to electric cars there would probably be more coal plants which would not be good. In my opinion fossil fuel emissions are the biggest pollution problem that we've created. Since we have a limited source of these fuels we might as well make the switch to a clean fuel sooner rather than later, and I think electric cars are maybe the first step to making these changes. Of course electric cars will never be mainstream while governments are making so much profit off of oil.

Blackboar

12-16-2002, 02:40 PM

Hmm...

I think its strange when some vegetarians (i.e lots of my mates!) just wince at the sight of meat because of the little cute animals! Then when it comes to other animals like insects and snakes they are just like "Kill them! Kill them! and I am just like "Hey they are animals too! Dosn't mean just cause they are not cute dosn't mean you can kill them!"

And all my other mates, the ruthless ones, eat meat all the time, not really caring at all. (This description actually describes me a bit) then when it comes to insects and snakes and stuft they are justlike "Don't kill it! It's really sweet" Then picks it up and starts cudding it like a baby!

Blackboar

12-17-2002, 12:21 PM

What do you think about this?
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Elven Archer

12-17-2002, 01:28 PM

i think it's silly how some people think animals are just like us. and they should have all the same rights and stuff. I don't think you should mistreat animals though,like neglecting them and beating them and whatnot.i also think its silly how vegitarians or animal rights people squash bugs but are so against eating and killing them,like you said. i don't get how vegitarians think it's okay for other animals to eat other animals but not okay for us to eat other animals. when we're basically animals anyway.

cassiopeia

12-18-2002, 12:40 AM

I am a vegetarian because the way animals are treated before they are slaughtered, not because I think it is wrong to eat animals. Yes, I kill spiders (quickly and painlessly, hopefully), but that is a far cry from keeping an animal in a cage with barely enough room to move and pumped full of drugs.

BeardofPants

12-18-2002, 01:10 AM

Elven Archer, we ARE animals. And I don't squash any bugs except for flies....

I am vegetarian because I object to the WAY animals are exploited. I have no problem with people going out to kill for their dinner, but do you have any idea how much wastage there is in the meat industry? I used to work in a delicatessen, and sometimes we used to throw away whole cuts of meat. The wastage is appalling, and people seem to forget that an animal died to get the meat in the first place. I got so sick of people complaining: "Oh it's too fatty" "It looks dry" "I don't want that piece, it's too big" etc. For gods sake! That animal gave its life up, and all you can do is friggin' complain?!

Dunadan

12-18-2002, 05:12 AM

I think it's morally wrong to subject animals to unnecessary suffering, but I don't think it's wrong to exploit them. If we hadn't, we'd never be sitting here getting excited about LOTR. In my view, animals have some rights, but not as many as people.

It would be great if we could move to a more ethically pleasing arrangement for the food industry, but I think that's out of the question as long as we have the economic system we do.

The thing that really annoys me is the anti-vivisection brigade. They seem to care about animals which are furry or fluffy more than they care about human suffering.

cheers

d.

Miranda

12-18-2002, 05:17 AM

Originally posted by Dunadan
I think it's morally wrong to subject animals to unnecessary suffering, but I don't think it's wrong to exploit them. If we hadn't, we'd never be sitting here getting excited about LOTR. In my view, animals have some rights, but not as many as people.

It would be great if we could move to a more ethically pleasing arrangement for the food industry, but I think that's out of the question as long as we have the economic system we do.

The thing that really annoys me is the anti-vivisection brigade. They seem to care about animals which are furry or fluffy more than they care about human suffering.

cheers

d.

Its a hard subject to comment on really. I'm totally against using animals for make up tests etc but I really can't come out and say I'm against all animal testing because without it my Grandad would be dead and so would I! I don't think there'll ever be a solution to this sort of thing- there's no clear area to draw the line between what's acceptable and what isn't. Mx