Well, that’s an extremly complex questions and there are many cases to consider and personal opinion on these can vary a lot.
For example one of the least limited cases should be animal testing for medical purposes. There should still be limits, but they have to be carefully decided by weighing the potential benefits against the suffering caused.
Another prominented case would be factory farming. I think that’s quite bad and also makes for a poorer end product. But I don’t think there is anything fundamentally wrong with keeping livestock for eating it. But the details of how regulation should work exactly are again quite complex and beyond the scope of a lemmy comment.
For example one of the least limited cases should be animal testing for medical purposes
Point given. Or at least half a point… The problem I have with animal testing is, that for
alternatives exist, that often are safer and better that animal testing - but they are often not considered of plain out forbidden just because of some ancient laws and regulations. Technology has advanced and could prevent a lot of animal suffering, just regulations have not been keeping up with the innovation.
Animals in testing facilities are treated like shit their whole life, just because it is “cheaper” that way. I mean yeah, there might still be cases where there is no current alternative to animal testing, but treating the animals with absolutely ZERO respect is not acceptable imho.
I don’t think there is anything fundamentally wrong with keeping livestock for eating it
So, if I would keep some cute, fluffy dogs or cats at my place just so that I can kill them tomorrow and eat them - maybe even sell their meat - would that be still be OK for you?
Point given. Or at least half a point… The problem I have with animal testing is, that for (…)
I’ve not been keeping up with it either. I’m all for avoiding animal testing when it’s not needed. I’m just not against it on principle.
Animals in testing facilities are treated like shit their whole life, just because it is “cheaper” that way.
I mean that sounds horrid at first, but it’s a valid point. I’m not quite sure what the alternative methods you mentionred are, but something like a complex computer model is probably much more expensive and slower then just testing on mice. And it could help getting a procedure or drug to people faster and cheaper.
So, if I would keep some cute, fluffy dogs or cats at my place just so that I can kill them tomorrow and eat them - maybe even sell their meat - would that be still be OK for you?
Again, I won’t object on principle. I know someone that tried dog and it’s apprarently not that good. Also I think you can somewhat legally eat dog where I live. Like you can’t trade the meat, but slaughtering and eating are fine, so you kind of have to find a farmer that will invite you to dinner. But not really something I’m interested in.
I’d have much more objections to people eating rare, wild animals, like whales. Cats and dogs are domesticated animals, so we’re not going to run out of them.
So do you think that we should be allowed to do anything we want to non-human beings, or should there be a limit for that?
There should be some limits, sure. But but comparing it to slavery or forced labour is just silly anthropomorphising.
OK, cool. So where do you think the limit should be?
(Also, was not a comparison but an analogy. But that doesn’t really matter, does it?)
Well, that’s an extremly complex questions and there are many cases to consider and personal opinion on these can vary a lot.
For example one of the least limited cases should be animal testing for medical purposes. There should still be limits, but they have to be carefully decided by weighing the potential benefits against the suffering caused.
Another prominented case would be factory farming. I think that’s quite bad and also makes for a poorer end product. But I don’t think there is anything fundamentally wrong with keeping livestock for eating it. But the details of how regulation should work exactly are again quite complex and beyond the scope of a lemmy comment.
Point given. Or at least half a point… The problem I have with animal testing is, that for
So, if I would keep some cute, fluffy dogs or cats at my place just so that I can kill them tomorrow and eat them - maybe even sell their meat - would that be still be OK for you?
I’ve not been keeping up with it either. I’m all for avoiding animal testing when it’s not needed. I’m just not against it on principle.
I mean that sounds horrid at first, but it’s a valid point. I’m not quite sure what the alternative methods you mentionred are, but something like a complex computer model is probably much more expensive and slower then just testing on mice. And it could help getting a procedure or drug to people faster and cheaper.
Again, I won’t object on principle. I know someone that tried dog and it’s apprarently not that good. Also I think you can somewhat legally eat dog where I live. Like you can’t trade the meat, but slaughtering and eating are fine, so you kind of have to find a farmer that will invite you to dinner. But not really something I’m interested in.
I’d have much more objections to people eating rare, wild animals, like whales. Cats and dogs are domesticated animals, so we’re not going to run out of them.