Agree. That comment hit a pet peeve of mine, because it's simply absurd to think that -anyone- would say, "So... either I have to die a horrible and slow death... or accept a pig's heart to continue my own? Nah, I think I'd rather take the horrible and slow death. Thanks, though."

It really isn't absurd, particularly in countries where people can get a dignified, humane death (not England, sadly) with those sorts of conditions. Disbelief in how committed (or stupid, depending on your point of view) people can be unwise.

This point is a couple pages old, but I was off makin' money:

Cosmetic testing and medical testing are completely different beasts. Medical testing is, ironically, more highly regulated. Cosmetic testing is not. In many ways, it cannot be, since cosmetic testing is primarily testing to see what causes suffering. You need to see if something is an eye irritant? You get yourself a bunny and you smear the stuff in its eyes, because rabbits have typical mammalian eyes but lack the mechanisms that most mammals have to keep them clean. That's what they did with your shampoo. If the chemists and the rabbit got lucky, they didn't need a second trial.

You don't know me, so please don't attempt to tell me what I would or would not do in a given situation. You have absolutely nothing to support what you are saying in regards to me, where as I hold specific beliefs that I'm confident in. So confident, in fact, that they won't go flying out the window in the face of death. I'm not a fair weather believer.

It's not a matter of what I believe to be more important. I, quite obviously, said if it were myself, I would not take the valve and what is preposterous is that you are telling me otherwise. How incredibly insulting and presumptuous of you.

A question. There are Orthodox Jews that deny porcine heart valve replacements. Are they "full of ?" Are they "dealing with it?" Or are they simply having the audacity to believe in something that you do not?

As for bow hunting, regardless of which one you believe hurts more, between a bow and a gun...one is more accurate and is far more likely to kill. You can't argue this fact with me, I have first hand experience on numerous occasions.

I'll admit, religious zealotry is a different beast. If you've been brainwashed from birth to believe that you'll burn in hell for all eternity if you do something, then that becomes a greater evil than death. Same can be said for the mentally incapable who actively seek death for one reason or another. Rational people, on the other hand, have a normally evolved sense of self-preservation that kicks in at an instinctual level when faced with death (or to a lesser extent, pain in general) and forces you to take action to prevent it.

As far as bow hunting goes, I maintain it depends on your skill. You hand me a rifle and I'm more likely to shoot myself than hit a deer fatally at a distance. My uncle, however, could take a compound bow and hit a damned rabbit in the chest from 150 yards. I have seen in my life someone shoot a deer with a rifle and have it run away (and probably die later, I'll assume). I've seen someone take a bow and hit a deer straight through the heart and have it essentially drop dead. I can't speak to anything other than what I've witnessed, however, because I'm awful with ranged weapons of all kinds. Melee weaponry has always been my strong suit.

As an aside: I'm impressed by anything that can kill a deer. Ever seen someone hit a deer with their car? The car will be thrashed and the deer will get up and run away. It's incredible.

You are remarkably close minded regarding the opinions and beliefs of others. I'm glad you have all the answers, but I'm not going to debate this with you. I'm fairly insulted as is.

You need to be careful, you are being very insulting with that post.

But I agree that ranged weaponry's accuracy is all dependant upon the skill of the one who wields it. Bow hunting can be very humane.

Isuka...how do you manage to get "rational" and then "uncontrollable instinct that forces you to __" in the same sentence like that while still sounding so convicted?!

Chill out with the ad hom attacks, yo. My stance:

1. Human sapience takes precedence over all other lifeforms on the planet. It would not matter if all other lifeforms on the planet died and we remained, because intelligent life is possibly such a rarity in the universe, it should be protected and nourished at all costs.

2. There is absolutely no excuse for intentional animal cruelty, but humanity needs to be fed and clothed. Tough.

3. Dependence on animals does not = cruelty.

Eh, sometimes I forget that I live in the conservative bastion of California, and other areas are more open minded. I've spent so much of my life being attacked, told I'm going to burn in hell, having a public spectacle made of myself and so forth because I'm an atheist that I've developed required defensive mechanisms and hatreds. Thus, if you're not a complete about your religion, consider yourself exempt from my comments.

That said, my comment still holds true: your natural instinct for self-preservation can be "tricked" with the belief that there is something worse than death to protect yourself from.

I'm getting the mental image of Mad Max's closing scene, except instead of a handcuff, it's a pig. >_>

In the middle of the Steppes of Asia, with rudimentary tools, it pretty much is. Go yell at the nomadic herders if it bugs you as "inhumane."

Yeah, the ballot initiative was thrown in as a way to get the bleeding hearts to vote for a regulation that will essentially just kill our industry. Imported meat undercutting the now inflated costs, gg.

I consider myself a very liberal person, with compassion and sensitivity in my ideals, but it is enternally frustrating to me when those on the "same" political side of the fence as me act without thought, research or information. In politics, compassion is only a weakness, sadly. Lrn2Machiavelli.

For those that are interested, I was watching HBO and saw this:

Death on a Factory Farm

Looks interesting.

I'm sitting on the fence for this issue. I've spent many hours thinking about this topic (yes, I do that while commuting), and had to write on this topic for school essays.

I doubt anyone would be for animal cruelty for cruelty's sake. There is no need to argue about this.
However, there are times when animal cruelty has benefits. Animal testing, killing for food and such have benefits to them. The question is whether the benefits outweigh the evils, which in these cases, I feel the benefits hold a greater weight.
There are, though acts which I feel the cruelty outweighs the benefits. For example, blood sports like bullfighting and dog fights. Yes, there is entertainment and culture attached to such activities, but that does not outweigh the pain and suffering experienced by these animals.

I think that this issue is very broad. There are many different sub-issues within animal cruelty that we need not paint in such broad strokes or in just black and white. For example, hunting. Some of you feel that it is cruel and not needed. Other feel that it is no different from killing farm-raised animals. Yet others feel only certain kinds of hunting are cruel. There are so many sides and stances that one can hold with regards to such a minor issue within the broad category that is animal cruelty, much less with regards to animal cruelty as a whole. Just because someone feels that eating meat is right does not mean that that person condones animal cruelty. But neither is the person that feels that animals should be treated, for the lack of a better word, humanely, means that they feel animals should be treated the same way as humans.

Although, to be honest, I've yet to have watched the video. I've watched enough like these to know what is going to be in it. I also know that watching it would make me depressed (just like watching the news).

umm, this isn't true at all. All of Jewish law has a very specific clause in it. If you are going to die, all laws are out the window, and you can do anything to save yourself, except for 3 special rules (such as being told to murder another person)

It is ironic you say that. Because stunning the cow is a new invention from people thinking that being stunned meant less pain. But it's been proven that stunning is what causes most of the pain. Slicing open the throat with a perfectly sharp blade while putting little restraint on the animals, is the most humane and primitive way of slaughtering a cow.

Mostly because when people see the animal flail around even after it is brain dead they assume it is in pain, when in fact it isn't. (Proven with EEGs)

You...did not think this through. If you are unconscious, you are not feeling pain pretty much by definition. (Of course, if you're clubbing something over and over because you lack the tools to do this efficiently, then you are not helping.) In contrast, bleeding out is not a quick or happy way to go. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that some website supporting kosher meats fed you this lie.

I don't understand how you can say "that's not true."

It is. Orthodox Jews have denied porcine valve replacement. It's happened.

edit: As for the other subject, in a mass slaughter factory, how sharp do you think a knife is going to be? Bleeding out is not painful in itself (going off what I've heard) as it's more like falling asleep, it's the stab to the jugular and the ripping out of their entire throats that is painful. Nor can you really say with any level of certainty that all animals flailing around after the fact are brain dead.

Not because it came from a pig. (edit: Are you getting your information from an episode of grey's anatomy?)

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as my knowledge on Jewish law is fairly non existent, and I speak only on documented cases. Regardless, it was provided as an example and a counter point to being "full of " for not discarding a belief system.

Perhaps a bad example, I dunno.

Wow.

I was going to post more thoughts on this matter, but after seeing where this may be headed...