3 ms·
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals#Animal_testing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatme... You ca
by bbarnett 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals#Animal_testing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatme...
You cannot oppose all animal testing, say it is morally wrong under all circumstances, then ... because you're fighting to end it, say in your special little case -- it is OK.
PETA representatives have often said that killing animals, is not worth saving one human life.
Such broken logic indicates that this person thinks that they are special. They aren't, they could die tomorrow, and some other pro-PETA person could become VP. They are, quite literally, saying it is OK for countless humans to die, due to a lack of animal testing, but that for them?
Special little them?
It's OK.
- TaylorAlexander 6y agoIt feels perfectly consistent to say that we ultimately need to end animal testing but it is okay to use animal products for your literal survival in the meantime. Perhaps they don’t have such a position. But it feels pretty wrong headed to me to mock PETA because a diabetic uses insulin rather than take heed to their very real and very important message about the abuse of animals in our society. It feels like you’re purposefully redirecting the conversation away from yourself because you do not want to discuss animal abuse.
- bbarnett 6y agoThat's not what PETA says, though. They say, animal testing is NEVER EVER EVER OK. Ever. They have further stated that using animal tested products is 100% morally wrong. Except, of course, for Special People which are 'in the fight'. This is far different from saying "We need to work to end animal testing".
- gwerbret 6y ago> It feels perfectly consistent to say that we ultimately need to end animal testing but it is okay to use animal products for your literal survival in the meantime. Out of purely academic interest, how are you not bothered by the clear contradictions in that logic?
- TaylorAlexander 6y agoI genuinely don’t see a contradiction? Let’s work hard to eliminate animal testing, even if that means developing new technology to solve the problems we’re currently trying to solve with animal testing. In the meantime this position would advocate to rapidly end all non-survival related animal products like cheeseburgers, while allowing some nuance for life saving medicine. Seems perfectly reasonable?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ywei3410 6y agoThere's a difference between, > we ultimately need to end animal testing and, > work hard to eliminate animal testing One is known as a universal; animal testing shouldn't be done regardless of the consequence. The other is a much weaker standpoint. You've taken the extreme condition of "cheeseburger" where most people would say there doesn't exist anyone who can't reasonably switch to a non-animal product - but what about cosmetic products which people use to help their self-confidence (acne treatments and what not), can those be tested on animals? By what metric do you choose what's necessary and what's not in the meantime? Your own example of leather boots isn't directly survival related i.e. you don't die if you don't have them. The final problem is that it's not an unreasonable hypothesis that there will be products which will always be needed to be tested on animals (such as medicines) - is it morally correct in your worldview that we continue to pursue such products?
- pera 6y agoI don't see the contradiction, it is similar to say "we ultimately need to stop burning fossil fuels" while using Internet and living in a city.