FUD - Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt
Los Angeles-based Jerry Vlasak remains a keynote speaker at a conference in Kent in September despite controversy stoked by reports that he backs the murder of scientists.
I'm sorry. Say that again. The man is breaking the law. He is encouraging the murder of innocent people. Like anti-abortion people who kill doctors, I find this reprehensible.
Don't like abortion, fine. Vote for a government who supports you.
Don't like animal testing, fine. Vote for a government who supports you, don't use animal products, don't take ANY medicine, and wear sackcloth. I don't give a shit but stop threatening people I care about with murder.
I have friend and people I care about who work in the pharmaceutical industry. You have just threatened their lives. Directly. You can fuck off. Take a careful stud of the law but threatening someones life is illegal AFAIK. (anyone with any legal knowledge chip in here please). Either way, threaten the kill people I care about and I'll take issue.
One of my best friends died of cancer. A very close relation to me had breast cancer. So you want more people to die? Thanks. Thats nice of you. Murder a few scientists, stop animal testing, let the half the world suffer. These are old people, and children and your mates, and that nice person you work with who unfortunately has MS who all will suffer because you don't understand how science work and what really goes on with animal modelling.
And that is even without considering the people who will directly die because they had an adverse reaction with a drug because the drug couldn't be fully tested, because you managed to shut down vital research. Oh well done you. I hope you are proud.
Less than 2% of animal modelling is actually done on primates and canines. Not that the posters you see would indicate that. Most of the testing is mice and rats. Realise that are wanting to kill murder people and indirectly let many others suffer and die because of mice and rats.
The guidelines and rules for treatment of animals used for animal modelling is very strict and the animals are treated very well. Not that the posters you see would indicate that.
Many more animals are abused by pet owners. If you are really wanted to help animals go join the RSPCA, and stop real animal abuse. ... more than 108,000 complaints were made to the RSPCA involving 650,489 animals . And thats only reported numbers.
Of course working for the RSPCA isn't as headline grabbing as attacking scientists ... but of course it's all about the animals isn't it.
1. Jose
I wholeheartedly agree.
2. Destructor
Did he actually say: “I support the murder of animal-experimenting scientists X and Y.” or did he say: “I support the murder of animal-experimenting scientists in general.”
Because if he was talking in general, I don’t think that’s actually breaking the law, is it? Unless you’re inciting hate crimes, which generally run on lines of race and religion, I think it’s okay to say you SUPPORT the breaking of particular laws, so long as you don’t break them.
That said: I agree- murdering (or experimenting on) animal-experimenting scientists is worse than murdering animals, and I think this guy is a jerk for suggesting it -and I think most animal rights activists would agree.
But don’t give me this comparative morality crap, that if you can save ten pets from being abused by thier owners you can salve your conscience about the one who was bred specifically to see how much hairspray they could take in through thier eyes before expiring.
3. Adrian
I support the murder of animal experimenting scientist (in general).
I support the murder of people who sleep with people of the same sex (in general).
I support the murder of people with dark skin (in general).
I support the murder of people who are Jewish (in general).
Tell me what the in general bit makes a difference. Even if he doesn’t go and murder people himself he is actively encouraging violence if not murder against a group of people. It makes no difference if they are librarians, scientists, gays, Jews or blacks. It’s just wrong.
And their is no comparative mortality. Firstly I never once mentioned cosmetics, and talked only about medical research. The cosmetics battle has been pretty much fought and won. So don’t pollute the argument with more FUD.
I was saying that more animals are abused by owners than primates and canines are used for MEDICAL research. Seems like people who care about animals are going after the wrong targets.
4. Jose
The testing of cosmetics on animals has been illegal in this country for several years. Yes, it is still possible for the individual components of fragrances etc to be tested for their allergenic potential, but this too will be illegal in 2009, and a lot of work is being performed to develop alternative methods.
5. Destructor
Adrian: The difference is that being gay, black or or Jewish is not a position that you take, a choice that you make*. Being gay, black or Jewish doesn’t cause harm to animals.
Look, maybe it is hard to quantify the difference between someone saying: “God, scientists who experiment on animals make me so mad- I wish someone would show them what it’s like to be an experimented animal and murder THEM!” and someone saying: “God, gay people make me so mad- I wish someone would show them, er, how it feels to, er, be straight…..uhm……and murder them!”
Wait, it’s not hard at all, because they’re completely different things and you are comparing apples to orange flavoured candy, just as you were doing comparing animal experimentation with pet abuse. To say: “Don’t protest THIS horrible thing, cause look over here, you can protest against this!” is like people who defend the Abu Gharib torture by saying: “Well, Hussein did worse.” I’m sure he did. But holding up one bad thing against another bad thing does not make either of them better- people are still free to protest against either of them.
Are they free to murder scientists as part of that protest? No. Are they free to say: “I wish experimenting on animals was punishable by death.” Yes. They’re jerks if they really mean it, but that’s the world for you.
d
*Yes I recognize that you can, in fact, choose to be Jewish. But it’s not a job.
6. Andy
Dito
7. matthew
what about pulling the wings off flys and observing the resultant altered behaviour pattern? Is that allowed? And is disapproving of it in a murderous fashion considered ‘taboo’? Wasps are best. If you can catch one. They get really pissed off.
8. stroppycow
Things have been taken to another level now anyway with some animal activist groups advocating “secondary action”. The idea is to target people who have an indirect link to animal testing like neighbours of the scientists getting their cars sabotaged with acid or people who work for firms which have shares or do work for pharmaceutical companies (like a builder who would be doing some work for a bank which owns investments in say Huntingdon’s). They also aprove of the targetting of the family of people who do the experiments and of the sending of letter bombs to home addresses. I can’t see how they can justify the maiming of anybody who may pick up the post even in the reasoning of it’s ok to kill them cause they chose to do it, after all their children did not chose their parents. On a more general note - according to a friend who works for the CNRS - animal testing, especially on primates is very costly so tends not to be the first choice.
9. Adrian
Actually many people who hurt gay people do actually believe it is a choice they make, so it’s not that different to a job. And many people who hate blacks hurt white people who try to date them, and that’s also a choice.
The parallel I am drawing is that any kind of extremism that advocates hurting someone or worse killing them because they are doing something that they either don’t like or makes them feel uncomfortable (testing on animals or men shagging other men or performing abortions for example) is wrong, and I think illegal. As in the case of the abortion doctor being murdered, this can lead to action being taken.
I’m not saying don’t protest animal testing. I am not saying don’t stand up for what you believe. I’m not saying don’t argue a case because worse is being done. I’m saying when you start threatening the lives of people, when you start advocating that it is acceptable to go to extreme lengths that include threats, vandalism, intimidation, physical harm, and murder, that you are no longer standing up for what you believe, but are actually a criminal. I’ve said it before that Thinking you are right doesn’t make it so
As stroppycow says in her comment, the people who claim their cause has value seem to think this is enough to justify any action, against almost anyone they see fit. This isn’t protest any more than the mob collection protection money was security. This is criminal activity plain and simple. There is a reason we have a court system instead of posses and lynch mobs. The scientists are not committing any crimes, and I know as a fact the pains and lengths they go to, to ensure that they are compliant with state law.
Saying “I wish experimenting on animals was punishable by death.” is acceptable, even in a society that has no death penalty. If that’s what they were doing I wouldn’t post this observation. But they are not saying that. They are advocating and encouraging vi0lonce on a group of people that they have decided are distasteful and that that distaste in itself is enough to justify the later actions against these people. Tell me how that is different between gay bashing or beating up on Jews or attacking blacks. Tell me really how it’s different.
I’m Jewish, and I don’t see the difference. I can’t comment for black or gay people or any one else who someone has justified harm or intimidation or trouble against on the basis of their actions were thought to be distasteful. Gay marriages will be accepted as part of our society in somewhere between 5 and 25 years IMHO. It’s already started in the USA. Not because gay people advocated violence on straight people but because they pushed for rights that should be theirs through voting and campaigning and politics and legal systems. It’s slow and it’s laborious and it’s a hard road. But it works.
It worked for Ghandi. It worked for Martin Luther King. What makes animal rights any different?
10. Chris
The man speaks the truth. Harken to his wisdom!
11. Chris
Er, the man in question being Adrian, obviously, not that lunatic animal rights activist. Just in case anyone’s confused.
12. Destructor
Actually many people who hurt gay people do actually believe it is a choice they make, so it’s not that different to a job.
Okay I will be more clear cut. One of the four examples you upheld brings harm to other beings, by definition. The other three do not. I therefore do not consider them to comparable. “I wish all the Janjaweed extremists in Darfur were dead.” That is NOT the same as saying I wish all gay/black/jewish people were dead. One is an action, the others are states of being.
I recognize the parallel you are drawing, but if I can scale it back a little, I think you would feel slightly different towards me if I told you I’d gone protesting against animal experimentation this weekend, as opposed to if nI said that I’d gone to protest against Jews/gays/blacks. See the difference? One is unreasoning hatred, pure and simple. The other is the logical extension of a line of rational thinking, whether you agree with it or not. I therefore think it’s an unfair parallel to draw.
I’m not saying don’t argue a case because worse is being done.
Well, you did say that rather than direct their energies towards animal testing, protestors should really focus on abused pets. I think there’s room for both.
As a teenager, I once caught a kid throwing my cat against a power pole. I flew into a rage and threw HIM against the power pole. He ran off and I screamed: “I’m going to kill you, you little motherfucker!!!”, and I absolutely meant it. Should I be jailed for advocating murder? Action, not thought, should be punishable.
I am not advocating violence to further a cause, nor am I defending advocates of such violence. I’m defending free speech- the crime of locking up someone for what they say is worse than anything they might be saying. Words are powerful, yes, which is exactly why they should NOT be regulated by governmental force.
I want to stress that I agree with your overall argument: Extremism in protesting should not be tolerated. But you were also trying to make more than one case in moral equivalency, and they simply aren’t equivalent.
d
13. Doctor Pockless
I support cannibalism.
14. Adrian
Doctor Pockless - Bite me.
15. Adrian
One of the four examples you upheld brings harm to other beings, by definition
That’s only partly true. The definition of “harm to other beings” muddies when the research they are doing, bring relief, and saves lives of millions of beings (including animals).
I do understand the difference you are trying to draw between gay/black/Jewish people and people protesting animal testing. However this only applies to normal people. If you had gone protesting animal testing I would accept that your choice and opinion and right.
If you had gone firebombing scientists cars however I would view that no differently as if you decided to go gay bashing. I very much doubt our friendship would have last if you were that kind of person. logical extension of a line of rational thinking only applies to people who are rationally thinking. Tell me where these animal extremists are thinking rationally when they use effectively terrorist techniques to get their way.
The point I was trying to make, is that far more animals are maltreated as pets than in scientific and medical research. If I really cared about animals, and had the time and resource that SHAC and other of these extreme activists seem to have, that time and energy could save and help far more animals by devoting it to the RSPCA. The cynic in me thinks that headline grabbing extremest seems far more important to these people than saving animals. I’m an engineer, and I see the things based on effectiveness. I think helping the RSPCA would be a far more effective way of helping animals.
I do not see a upset kid reacting to animal cruelty (you and your cat) as anything related to a campaign of terrorising and threatening scientists. However if you spent the next 5 years terrorising that kid for what he did to your cat, that would be wrong and you know it.
I’m not drawing a parallel based on moral equivalency. I’m drawing a parallel based on the type of people who advocate this type of extreme action. It’s the same kind of person, be them a neo-nazi, a homophobe or a animal rights activist.
And that kind of person is dangerous.
And thats all it comes down to, is that I am saying these people are dangerous, and should be treated like criminals not protesters. Because their activities are criminal.
I support the right to protest. I support the right to free speech. I support the scientists rights to lead a normal unthreatened life.
I do not support dangerous people who think they have more right because their cause is just.
16. Destructor
I think we are essentially in agreement here. I don’t support violent protest either.
But it’s interesting where people like to draw their battle lines. Like most people, I think the life of a human is of more value than the life of an animal. But this is an entirely arbitrary distinction based mainly on the fact that I happen to be human. Some people may think that the life of a human and the life of a squirrel monkey or cat are equivalent (or equally deserving of protection), and there’s really not a whole lot you or I can say to ‘disprove’ that statement, since both positions are equally arbitrary.
Obviously there have been many times in history where humans (A) have killed humans (B) because they were abusing/slaughtering a disenfranchised group of humans (C). This killing is seen as ‘justified’ because, hey, the ones being killed (B) were the aggressors, so their deaths are required to prevent the suffering of group (C). The Allies were morally justified to come and liberate the Nazi death camps, in other words.
Now, if group (C) happens to be monkeys and not people, well, obviously as humans we innately protect ourselves before animals, which is why it’s legal to kill animals and not humans. But there really isn’t a conclusive argument to be made as to why killing monkeys is better than killing humans, other than “Cause we’re human and they not.” (or, more dangerously, because we have souls and they do not).
If you spent the next 5 years terrorising that kid for what he did to your cat, that would be wrong and you know it.
I did and it wasn’t!
d
17. razorhead
(Disclaimer: I am generally opposed to violent action. I am generally a supporter of animal experimentation. I also know your post was about violent action and not about the ethics of the subject in general)
As of a few years ago at least (can’t quote accurate sources or figures), there were several thousand animals used for experiments into analgesics which appeared to be repeating well known experiments oft repeated for half a century. If there is anything we don’t already know about paracetamol, I’ll be a squirrel monkey in lab.
I’m sure people in white coats don’t feed mammals the equivalent of a bottle of Stoli and an OD of asprin for fun, but for I have sympathy for the argument that there is a significant amount of needless suffering caused.
18. Adrian
Dan, it doesn’t matter where that arbitrary line is drawn by individuals, we as a society have decided that humans are more important than animals. We eat meat, we wear leather and we create medicines.
A small minority of people taking the law into their own hands because they disagree is criminal. Peaceful protest is not.
19. Adrian
Razor, I have asked someone very much in the know and apparently there is a hell of a lot we don’t know about paracetamol. We know how it works, but we don’t actually fully understand the mechanism of toxicity. Most of the animal modelling is done on mice and rats, and LD50 testing is rarely done anymore.
So I guess you have just volunteered for being a squirrel monkey in a lab.
Also their is no needless suffering with the animals. They are treated exceedingly well and there are strict laws protecting them from maltreatment.
20. stroppycow
To respond to Destructor. The activist actually post names and addresses of targets on their websites (I would have thought it was illegal but apparently not - or if it is it s impossible to police). Maybe the solution would that advocated by a gentleman on radio 4 yesterday (his name escapes me). Maybe the mention tested on animals or researched on animals should be printed on each box of medicine having required it. Then people would be free to refuse to take the medication. Animal activists could then quantify how many people feel as strongly as they do about the despatching of rodents.
21. Destructor
Okay, so, according to the venerable Metro this morning, the comment that got this guy in such hot water was: “Millions of lives could be saved if only a small handful of vivisectionists were killed.”
I know that we as a society have placed the lives of humans over that of animals, and I agree with that decision- that is why people who murder vivisectionists will be imprisoned while Ronald McDonald roams free. But individuals DO have the freedom to say they value the lives of their furry friends just as much as that of humans- if you start imprisoning people for that, next you’ll be imprisoning people for saying they wished celebrity publicist Max Clifford should take a long walk off a short plank.
d
22. Adrian
Maybe I haven’t been clear enough.
People who value animals as much as human are acceptable.
People who speak out against animal testing are acceptable (although in my opinion often misguided)
People who protest animal testing are acceptable (although in my opinion often misguided)
People who muse that a certain group of people would be better off dead (be that George W Bush or a scientist or a Jew) are unpleasant but acceptable.
People who incite others to kill, murder, harm terrorise, abuse frighten in any way another group of people are dangerous, and should be treated as criminals.
23. Destructor
I feel perhaps we are beginning to retread ground.
I agree with you on all points possible. However that agreement is contingent on a belief that animals and humans are not equal, which is a point of faith, there being no objective arguments for equality or inequality either way.
Alter this point of faith to treat the lives of animals as equal to humans, and vivisectionists would fall into the category of people who kill, murder, harm, terrorize, abuse and frighten- and they should then therefore be punished as criminals.
I would strike out with violent force to protect my cat because it’s mine and I have an emotional attachment to it. I don’t see why Ramius gets my protection while thousands of other spanimals are getting, er, ‘modelled’.
I think, sometimes, the similarities between mice and humans are exaggerated for the good of the scientific community.
d
24. Adrian
However you can believe what you want to about animals, it is very simple.
It is legal to test on animals, provided you have the correct licenses.
It is not legal to victimise people.
It is not legal to abuse pets.
If you beat someone who hurt her cat into a coma, you would be prosecuted for the crime you committed. You recourse is to lay criminal charges on someone who hurt your cat, not strike them with force.
It does not matter a jot what you believe, the law is laid down.
If I believe women are there to serve my sexual needs, that does not give me the right to go around raping them.
Anti-vivs seem to believe that their cause gives them the right to transgress law. The simple fact of the matter is they don’t. I don’t give a flying fuck what they believe, as it is not their right to impose their beliefs on me, especially when those are counter to state law.
25. Destructor
But free speech is legal in America so this guy is free to wish vivisectionists as dead as he likes- he didn’t directly threaten individuals, I don’t think vivisectionists as a group are comparable with black/jews/gays, and I don’t think anti-vivisectionist rants should be punishable under hate crime laws, any more than Dilbert creator Scott Adams should be prosecuted for his anti-manager rants.
26. Adrian
Free speech is.
Incitement isn’t. It’s just harder to prove than pure hate speak.
And it’s not like they are just talking, they are actually burning cars and attacking scientists. Thats not legal either.
Anti-vivs rants are resulting in people being terrorised and attacked.
This should be just as punishable.
Or should we wait till someone kills a scientist like the anti abortion doctor who was murdered?
27. Destructor
While I disagree wholeheartedly with anti-abortionists, I support their right to protest abortion. If that protest involves the statement:
“Millions of lives could be saved by the deaths of just a few abortion-performing doctors.”
I do not believe that protestor should be charged with a criminal offence- debated with, sure, but jailed for expressing a legitimate opinion?
Thoughts should not be policed. Words should not be censored. You start doing one and you’ve added one link to the chain- before you know it, you’re all tied up.
d
28. Adrian
However we do not live in a society where you are allowed to advocate killing other people.
We do live in a society where free speech does have limits.
Because if you can advocate killing doctors you can advocate killing blacks/Jews/gays/new Zealand red heads.
29. Destructor
We do live in a society where free speech does have limits.
That is a contradiction in terms- “You are free to do what we tell you.”
You can be charged with inciting hate crimes, yes, but it’s very difficult, and I think locking people up for what they think is giving the Government power it was never meant to have.
To quote Eminem:
They say music can alter moods and talk to you Well can it load a gun for you, and cock it, too?
If you burn a car, let loose some animals, kill a doctor, you are responsible. Not some crazy Doctor who ‘incited’ you to it. Not some album which told you how to feel. Not some computer game that showed you just how fun it is to maim people. Individual responsibility for individual action. If the Doctor helped with the planning or an actual crime, great, lock him up. If he just said: “Aww gee I hate President Bush, sure wish someone would carpet bomb him like he carpet-bombed Iraq.” and then Bush died the following day in a bomb assault, should he be locked away for ‘incitement’? That’d be a lovely society to live in.
d
ps- the discrimination against gingas has gone unspoken too long. The line must be drawn here! This far! No further!
30. Adrian
We live in a society where everything has limits. Free speech too. We have censorship, and censorship has its values when not abused.
If I actively encourage someone to do something illegal I am partly responsible for their actions.
31. Destructor
If I actively encourage someone to do something illegal I am partly responsible for their actions.
Would it be contradictory of me to say that I agree with you on this point- you are partly responsible…and yet I still don’t believe the law should have the authority to punish you for merely saying you would like something to be done. It should only be able to punish you for things you’ve actually done.
The society you are endorsing is one step away from Mugabe’s thugs silencing political opposition parties. Give the government the right to punish you for what you think, and democracy will cave in on itself at frightening speed.
d
32. Adrian
Getting someone to commit violence is doing something.
And don;t be ridiculous I am not in any way endorsing Mugabe’s Zimbabwe. I have said repeatedly that I respect free speech but not incitement. I cannot agree that allowing people the right to say their mind is the same as allowing people the right to incite others to commit murder.
Suicide bombers are normally a product of an environment that has no free speech but has the right to incite others to kill. Are you saying that those who encourage people to go out and blow themselves up with a school bus of children should be protected under free speech?
33. Destructor
Getting someone to commit violence is doing something.
The Doctor in question didn’t ‘get’ anyone to kill a vivisectionist, he voiced a preference. This should not be punishable. Who is going to be the arbiter of what is acceptable to say or not say? You? Parliament? The Sun?
I am not in any way endorsing Mugabe’s Zimbabwe.
You’re endorsing a world where what you think is a crime, not what you do- one of the cornerstones of fascism.
I cannot agree that allowing people the right to say their mind is the same as allowing people the right to incite others to commit murder.
So where does free speech end and incitement begin? When Damien Hirst said that September 11 was one of the most beautiful works of art humanity had ever created, should he have be locked away for inciting artists to terrorism? If a local priest reads the bible chapter about Soddom and Ghomorra and a bunch of hoods beat up a gay man later that day, should the priest be held responsible? Maybe someone reads your site and beats up an animal rights activist later today, should lawyers come to shut your site down for being such a ‘incitement’ to hatred? You cannot police people’s thoughts.
If the Doctor in any way helped plan, organize, financially support, or accomplice a murder/terrorist act, then he should be tried and punished like anyone else. During that trial, his words could be used against him. But if the words alone are the fundment of the case, it will rightfully fail.
Are you saying that those who encourage people to go out and blow themselves up with a school bus of children should be protected under free speech?
I am saying EVERYONE should have the right to free speech without a government institution telling them what they can and cannot say.
Hook-handed Abu Hamza has loudly and publicly delcared his support for Al Queda and Palestinian terrorists. Even though I would have thought this would amount to incitement of hate crimes, it clearly hasn’t. However now they are trying to build a case that he has actively and financially supported terrorism, which IS a crime, and is also an action. SAYING you support terrorism is not. ACTUALLY supporting terrorism IS.
d
34. Adrian
This is why we courts of laws, and judges and juries and governments. So that each case can be taken individually and looked at on it’s merits.
Words are very powerful things. Hitler used them to get elected and used them to get otherwise ordinary people to do and ignore despicable things. Words are weapons, and people using words as weapons are dangerous. Dangerous people, get barred from entering the country, deported from the country and locked away sometimes.
Sometimes for the right reasons and sometimes not for the right reasons. This is the system of land in which we live.
If a local priest reads the bible chapter about Sodom and Gomorrah, and then preaches that gays are evil who should all be killed and that god would look positively on you if you went out and killed gay people, is not practising free speech, he is encouraging other people to commit hate crime.
In an Utopian society, one which we do not live in, it would be great that anyone could say anything. in the society that which we live, we need to balance the right to free speech with the rights of individuals to be protected from hate speech and incitement.
The side of the balance you propose is not balance but one with no rules. I would not like to live in a society where the instigator is protected while people die because of his words.
35. Destructor
I would not like to live in a society where the instigator is protected while people die because of his words.
And it’s your belief that the Doctor’s words are sufficient instigation to be criminally punished?
d
36. Adrian
I don’t know, I am not a judge with all the evidence at my access. I know it’s enough to warrant investigation.
Anyway time I think to leave our debate, which has strayed a little off topic. And leve the original topic open to other people.
37. Dr. Butcher
Is it morally okay to perform animal experiments towards the development of cures for animal diseases?
38. Adrian
I presume if the animal is already infected it’s not really considered experimentation.
But good thought provoking point you have made.
39. Strudel
Don’t hide behind the law in these arguments. The law tends to lag behind the moral code of a society.
There are many things people take for granted today, but would have been deemed “illegal” in the past (eg, women voting, driving a car in city limits without someone walking in front of it with a light, etc), yet changes in society make many “old fashioned” laws preposterous today. Testing on animals may be a society’s future notion of ridiculous and preposterous that this ever happened in the past. All change has to start somewhere. And sometimes people do have to do extreme things to get a law changed, debated, repealed, and/or re-written.
Let me be clear: I am in no way at all supporting voilence on either side!
Nevertheless, it is distainful to me that animals are treated cruelly, whether they are pets, for food, or for testing. It is possible raise food animals in humane conditions, with a good life and a good death. And surely many tests on animals are insufficient for any real conclusion about what it will do to humans - our physiology is just too different for it to be helpful - these particular kinds tests should and must be eliminated (I still feel sickly over that frog we dissected at school, and was that really necessary - in my opinion, it was not).
Personally, I believe that all those working with animals should treat the animals with kindness and respect. I also believe that all those working with people should treat people with kindness and respect.
40. Adrian
I’m not hiding behind the law. I’m pointing out that the activists are engaging in illegal activities. If you morally believe the law is wrong, vote to change the law. The law may lag behind morals (as it has in instances you have pointed out) but the problems with morals is that they are flexible. unfortunately I cannot rely on everyone having the same moral code to protect me. I can rely on the law.
Testing on animals is exceedingly expensive. If you really think these tests are done without value then speak to people in the medical research industry who do these tests. These tests are crucial to developing new drugs and medicines that save peoples live without adverse reactions. The tests are done on appropriate animals where we can find similarities in the biologies or the proteans present.
In the future we hopefully wont need to test on animals. Right now we don’t have enough alternatives. We are looking for them.
Animals in research labs are governed by very strict guidelines. The animals are treated as well as is possible, not withstanding the testing itself.
It’s a pity the people who object to this choose destructive violent paths instead of more acceptable methods of protest.
41. Lauz
No, you can’t determine the effects of a drug by testing it on animals alone. You must do clinical testing - TESTING ON HUMANS.
Which means, of course that if scientists somehow find a cure for AIDs through animal testing, then they will then have to test it on many humans as well before it can be applied.
42. dawn
What makes you think you can do what you want to gods creatures what makes you so fucking special!!! So you believe that mice arn’t worthy of living well why are they here then. Cutting these animals open, removing dogs voice boxes so they cant bark and injecting a mouse to make it wrinkly to test anti aging creams. your sick bastards how would you feel if we done that to you…… maybe we should…..
43. Adrian
See this is a point ” . “
You missing it.
But nice to see we have a crazy finally. I suggest you go do a bit of research about what goes on in medical research and then come back to me. Else I suggest you stop taking all medicines, eating anything non vegetable, and wearing any clothes with leather.
Let me know how the lack of medicine works for you.
44. Destructor
Well saying: “Without animal testing there would be no medicine.” is slightly specious because a lot of perfume, makeup and sunscreen testing is done on animals (which makes no sense, testing makeup on bunnies. I mean, they’re cute enough already [rimshot]). Are we allowed to protest that, or is it all under one umbrella?
What about medicines that were developed without animal testing? Can I have those? The whole: “If you don’t like what the government is doing, move to Baghdad!” argument is intellectually lazy.
Dawn’s POINT is- there is no argument to be made that humans have the right to torture animals. The argument cannot be made. Which is why you didn’t make one. Because there isn’t one. Because we don’t have that right. And on the other hand…..protestors are terrorists? Oh yeah, big time, they’ve killed SO many people!
Not that I think animals rights activists should be posting threatening letters to people who test on animals, or indeed digging up their dead grandparents, but those things are both pretty mild compared to some of the stuff which is done to animals in the name of science, so it’s a pretty humanocentric view to say that one is worse than the other.
45. Sevitz's Stalker
Kind of makes the assumption that animals - or for that matter, humans - have any “rights” to start off with. Where do these rights come from? How are they established and, more importantly, under the assumption that “rights” are an entirely valid concept, how do we know what rights we truly have and what rights we don’t have?
46. Adrian
On all of my posts about animal testing I have only ever talked about medical research. I’ve not entered into or debated the merits of it being used for cosmetics. I’ve talked about medical research. Huntingdon Life Sciences is about medical research.
So you can’t challenge me on animal testing regarding cosmetics as I never discussed the topic. It’s a separate and distinct topic of it’s own. One is about profit and nothing else, the other is about saving peoples lives. Yes medical companies do profit too, but something has to pay for the research.
Dawn’s point is that testing on animals is torture. I disagree. It’s an unfortunate, but necessary part of medical research. And most conventional drugs from pharmaceutical companies went through animal modelling at some stage of their development. If you don’t support animal testing stop buying drugs that have been developed by those companies. This will rule out a significant chunk of medicine. Best hope you don’t get too sick or hit by a car or anything.
Animal rights protesters have set peoples cars on fire. They have attached and victimized people working for and vendors of research labarotaries. This is terrorism. Would you suggesting waiting for people to actually get killed before you call it terrorism. Their actions are designed to induce terror and threaten. How is that not terrorism.
It may be a human-centric view or opinion to say one is better than the other. But it’s also that one is illegal (terrorising people, digging up graves) and animal testing is not. We live in a democracy, and your ability to change my opinion is limited to debate, and voting for a party that agrees with your view point. You do not have the right to take my choice (pro testing) away by force and victimisation.
47. Sevitz's Stalker
You have to admit though that it would be far better to do all testing on humans. It can hardly be proper science (controlled tests etc) to do tests on animals because, well, they’re a different species with, obviously, different physiologies. But until the law changes to allow vivisection on humans, we’re stuck with having to test on animals. I’m sure that if you change the law and you’ll see a change in testing practice, be it for medecines, cosmetics or just for the hell of it.
48. Adrian
Well all drugs are tested on humans eventually, but it is proper science to test on animals. Rats can be bread quickly, and are specially bred to be all of the same family or strain (not quite sure of the exact details, but it has been explained to me), so that different proteans or what not can be tested and compared. Hard to bread humans all of the same genetic strain, and to do it quickly.
And although their are differences between humans and animals, there are also enough similarities, especially on a molecular level to do effective testing. It most definitely is proper science.
Although in earlier medical days, testing was done directly on humans, most often the poor. This often wasn’t proper science.
49. Sevitz's Stalker
“Hard to bread humans” - mmm, human sandwich!