Animal-rights activists trash years of autism research in Milan lab raid

[Princess Luna]

Had this crime been perpetrated by a roving band of evangelicals who object to scientific treatment of autism and schizophrenia, you might have heard a lot about it this week. As it is, that would never happen, and it was animal-rights activists who did the damage. Will the reputation of their cause and mainstream activists have to contend with their actions?

Activists occupied an animal facility at the University of Milan, Italy, at the weekend, releasing mice and rabbits and mixing up cage labels to confuse experimental protocols. Researchers at the university say that it will take years to recover their work.

Many of the animals at the facility are genetic models for psychiatric disorders such as autism and schizophrenia.

No arrests have been made following the 12-hour drama, which took place on Saturday, although the university says that it will press charges against the protesters.
Officials know the organization responsible, they negotiated with them, and have photos of them posted on their social media sites in the act of their crime. Should be pretty easy to prosecute them unless the Italian system is too busy working on Amanda Knox’s extradition:

Five activists entered laboratories in the university’s pharmacology department on Saturday morning. The lack of signs of a break-in suggests that the activists may have used an illegally acquired electronic card, says pharmacologist Francesca Guidobono-Cavalchini, who works there. They prised open the reinforced doors of the facility on the fourth floor, and two of them chained themselves by the neck to the main double doors such that any attempt to open the doors could have endangered their lives.

They posted pictures of themselves on their organisation’s website, where they also declared that they would stay for as long as it took to get agreement to leave with all the animals. The facility hosts around 800 animals, mostly genetically modified mice but also some rabbits, according to Martino Bolognesi, a structural biologist at the university. The activists had brought supplies of food and sleeping bags.
But hey, they’re just there to help the animals:

Some of the mice they removed were delicate mutants and immunosuppressed ‘nude’ mice, which die very quickly outside controlled environments.
Oops. Screw the humans, too:

Michela Matteoli, a neurobiologist who works on autism and other disorders and lost most of her own research in the attack, says that she found some research students crying in the disrupted facility on Monday morning.

“It will take three people at least a year to build up the colonies we had of mouse models of different psychiatric diseases,” she says.
There are, of course, plenty of animal-rights organizations that do good work without being totally insane. I’ve fostered pets for some of them in my community. But animal-rights and environmental extremists have proven to be be capable of lots of damage and widespread, documented criminal activity. Yet they rarely get the press, say, a picture of a rude sign at a Tea Party rally might get. Maybe our more mainstream animal-rights friends could muster some loud denunciations of such tactics to prevent further losses of valuable research. A series of posters, maybe, featuring wasted celebrities stumbling out of swanky nightclubs—Lindsay Lohan, Mischa Barton, etc. “I’d rather get smashed than smash a lab.”

Although, I sure as hell wouldn’t trust PETA with the mice these guys got away with. Maybe we could chill with the credence we give those guys while we’re at it, too, huh Hollywood? They’d kill your teacup pups quick as look at ‘em.

As a bonus, April is Autism Awareness Month. Way to go, guys.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/24/animal-rights-activists-trash-years-of-autism-research-in-milan-lab-raid/

[soso17]

I'm probably going to catch hell for saying this, but it seems to me that animal rights activists are the most immature, and sometimes the stupidest, of all the activist "genres". Sorry folks, but human beings and their welfare seriously trumps the plight of a lab rat. If one person's suffering is prolonged by this stunt, I hope that these morons understand the severity of what they did.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I'm going to go further than soso, I hope these bastards get hanged. Every year this research is delayed, that's another million people more who have to suffer these diseases. So I don't think it's hyperbole to say that these people deserve a good old fashion lynching.

Oh yea, and fuck who ever is offended by that. Seriously, mental disorders are real things that ruin the lives of millions of real people. So fuck you animal rights people, and fuck you pseudo leftists.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

People who value the wellbeing of a couple of mice over the wellbeing of millions of people fucking disgust me - some of the lowest lifeforms on earth.

Animal Rights activists can be understood but these ridiculous shitbags are fucking evil.

[Sidagma]

Well, hold up, what kind of research are we talking? Autism Awareness Month, and any kind of "cure" research or rhetoric is widely opposed by autistic activists. We tend to understand ourselves as more of a natural variation on human neurodiversity, not a disease, and we consider any sort of "cure" research to be pretty much in the vein of eugenics.

While I'm sure that this isn't why these folks did it, they may have accidentally stumbled onto doing something that's at least partly awesome.

(For the record, I haven't seen much similar sentiment wrt schizophrenia, so poo poo on them for destroying that.)

[Fourth Internationalist]

I'm going to go further than soso, I hope these bastards get hanged. Every year this research is delayed, that's another million people more who have to suffer these diseases. So I don't think it's hyperbole to say that these people deserve a good old fashion lynching.

Oh yea, and fuck who ever is offended by that. Seriously, mental disorders are real things that ruin the lives of millions of real people. So fuck you animal rights people, and fuck you pseudo leftists.

Lynching? Really? That's so barbaric and disgusting. And you're really saying fuck animal rights activists because of these people? Wow. Just wow. "Psuedo-leftists" Wow. Mature indeed.

[Bostana]

Lynching? Really? That's so barbaric and disgusting. And you're really saying fuck animal rights activists because of these people? Wow. Just wow. "Psuedo-leftists" Wow. Mature indeed.

Let's try not to start a shit-storm comrade

[Fourth Internationalist]

Let's try not to start a shit-storm comrade

I'd love to not have one but advocating the lynching of people is disgusting and barbaric. Thus, it should not be advocated by anyone, let alone a self-proclaimed leftist.

[Sasha]

Considering the Amanda Knox jab ill take this report with a big dose of scepticism...any one championing her innocence clearly has little connection with truth and facts...

[Bostana]

I'd love to not have one but advocating the lynching of people is disgusting and barbaric. Thus, it should not be advocated by anyone, let alone a self-proclaimed leftist.

True. It makes me cringe when I here a so called "leftist" (any person for that matter) advocate Capital punishment

[Skyhilist]

Even if they did find a "cure" it wouldn't matter with the stranglehold the bourgeois have on society. Pharmaceuticals will always be developed to continuously be required to treat symptoms, not to cure them, and that is why the pharmaceutical industry has so much money and therefore control over what medicine gets out nowadays. Plus, I would also like to see evidence that vivisection rather than just being the most convenient option was necessary and that computer simulations or in vitro testing. Prove all this to me, then prove to me why it makes more sense to test on other animals that are anatomically different then humans and have given results that have led humans astray many times. If there is no large risk to life in these studies, then humans would be a much better match for such a study rather than lab animals. If there is, then you still have to understand that rodents, despite not being as intelligent as humans (by our standards at least), have just as much developed of a central nervous system as humans and are no less capable of feeling pain. So in terms of physical suffering the tests inflict, it is no less than that which would occur should the tests be done on humans.

So we've got a type of testing that often leads people astray and inflicts no less pain than if it were on humans. We've got a type of testing that usually can't even justify itself over testing with in vitro cultures or computer simulations. We've got a type of testing that objectifies sentient life. Finally, we've got a type of testing where if we actually bothered to research other more rational types of testing rather than pouring millions annually into that type of testing, we'd be more successful.
Given these types of inadequacies and the fact that these researchers chose to stick with them, I feel much less sympathy for this lab than most people on here probably do. This doesn't mean I oppose curing autism, if that's even a thing to be cured.

Most people on here probably oppose this. Feel free to respond if you want but know that I'm not about to get in another one of the useless back and forth arguments that propagate Revleft these days. They're essentially useless and get nothing accomplished, so frankly, I am done with them.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Let's try not to start a shit-storm comrade

If anyone is liable to start a shitstorm it would be YABM for advocating capital punishment for a bunch of weirdo pranksters, not one of the few persons in this thread who seems able to talk about this story without resorting to strange hyperbole on the border on Eugenics advocacy (if comrade's Sidagma response represents truth to how such activists see themselves).
- - - - - - - -

In any case: yet this event is another instance of the liberal animal rights activists showing their true colors. Not sure how things are in Spain but in the U.S even the Animal Liberation Front tells its supporters, through their website, to focus on large-scale industrial targets in their actions; places like slaughterhouses and fur-farms. This is one of the relatively few instances where mice were released: as far as I know most serious (i.e revolutionary) animal rights activists focus on animals with intelligences greater than that of rodents.

That being said I still do not know what the fascination is with these researchers in using animals as test subjects-as if a mouse's body is anything like a human's, as if the results shown in mice would have any semblance to a human host. Why they simply cannot find volunteers for their studies is beyond me (I guess mice are cheaper).

Everything about this story is obscene, however. Meaning, the article is clearly written by a socially-conservative ideologue (who obviously considers PETA to be a actual animal rights group instead of a happy-go-lucky chain of murderers); if this project was so important than why was it so easy for the activists to gain entrance? Not a single guard, really?; "years of research" in the academic world, to my understanding, this can either mean a huge investment or barely anything tangible, which is it? ; the mice lab in general is a absurd target. Probably the culprits were local students who had a hard-on for soft-activism. If they were dedicated to animal liberation they would've targeted a symbol more meaningful to capital and to the populace than a research facility (a place which doesn't hold a strong place in capital circulation and which is generally favorable seen by the population).

In short: whoever did this needs to become more conscious of their actions and mature in their targets.

[Skyhilist]

In short: whoever did this needs to become more conscious of their actions and mature in their targets.

Perhaps there were no major fur farms or meat factories around? Idk I think it does sound like a less relevant target compared to other ones like slaughterhouses, fur farms, etc. although I think more information would be needed to understand why they chose this target specifically before assuming they just felt like fucking the nearest shit up in the name of animal rights

[REV3R]

Some of the responses are truly disturbing. Lynching these people, are you kidding me? And also lumping all animal rights activists with these people is truly pathetic.

There has also been alot of research into animal suffering, which some of you probably have no clue about and are speaking out of ignorance. reseach has shown that mice understand suffering as well as fish.

Lets also work more on preventing diseases, rather than always finding a cure.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Perhaps there were no major fur farms or meat factories around? Idk I think it does sound like a less relevant target compared to other ones like slaughterhouses, fur farms, etc. although I think more information would be needed to understand why they chose this target specifically before assuming they just felt like fucking the nearest shit up in the name of animal rights

This is true. I won't be holding my breath, however. Maybe its just because I am a cynic but I have the feeling those responsible do not have very deep motives. But it is true: I would like to know more myself if only to slate my momentary curiosity.

[Akshay!]

Although I disagree with Chomsky on almost everything, I think his opinion on Animal Rights is pretty accurate (in short "they do have rights but nowhere near as much as humans"). Here's the video in which he explains his position -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26WRw7jRbnU

[Slippers]

Was AUTISM research deliberately targeted? Were they trying to be cruel? Offensive?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Considering the Amanda Knox jab ill take this report with a big dose of scepticism...any one championing her innocence clearly has little connection with truth and facts...

Was she really guilty? I haven't been following that case that closely, but the prosecution really seemed to screw the pooch on that case.

[#FF0000]

idk I'll pay attention to this story when it comes from a source that isn't HotAir

[Os Cangaceiros]

It's in Nature, too

http://www.nature.com/news/animal-rights-activists-wreak-havoc-in-milan-laboratory-1.12847

[#FF0000]

Lets give Nature pageviews instead

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Activists of this stripe do rub me up the wrong way (at least, the ones I hear and read about, I've no direct contact with persons or groups, so I'm probably speaking from a place of ignorance..anywho..)
Whether it's actions like this one or instances where a scientist and his family are terrorised or attacked, I've not come across an instance of these kind of activists offering reasonable alternatives and solutions, just violent and ill-conceived actions.
'Release the bunnies!!'
'OK, then what do we do vis a vis continued reasearch into diseases?'
'...animals are equal to humans!'

If there are examples of groups like this one offering something more than just 'let my hamsters go', I'd love to see them.

[Sidagma]

Woah okay.

Nature linked to an open letter from the department that says:

research focuses largely diseases of the nervous system, for which there is a desperate need of care, which is currently not available: autism, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, Multiple Sclerosis, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Prader-Willi syndrome, nicotine addiction

In other words, a whole lot of things that aren't schizophrenia???

This should serve as a cautionary tale about the power of shitty journalism. Autism and Schizophrenia are only ever grouped together under a highly problematic, thoroughly discredited model in which autism is classified as a form of psychosis. Autism doesn't involve psychosis, and so the value of any research that claims to interrogate it along the same lines as schizophrenia is highly suspect.

Autism does, however, involve a sensitivity to light, sounds, and textures, which are unpleasant to the autistic person who has them. (As a personal example, I find it highly unpleasant to hold or touch products made of wood, which makes writing on paper or with a pencil, among other things, very difficult.) Researching ways to alleviate or remove THOSE symptoms is far more productive, and far more supported by autistic activists.

So yeah, these guys are D-bags, and so are journalists who don't think there's an appreciable difference between Schizophrenia and Parkinson's.

[Os Cangaceiros]

MS and Alzheimer's are brutal diseases, it's hard to believe that people would find the suffering of mice to be more important than trying to find better treatments for those, to just name two...

[Ele'ill]

I find it odd that there are anti capitalists here on this forum that is anti capitalist that, despite otherwise insight and intelligence, suddenly believe in the marvels of modern pharma making mega hella progress for ill people everywhere the most human org evar!!! because it gives them the opportunity to attack animal liberation and this is honestly 99.9% of the strawmen giant stretches used by 'the left' to attack animal liberation. You all know that not a lot of animal testing holds up or is used at all, right?


http://ihaveseenanotherworld.tumblr.com/

[garrus]

I find it odd that there are anti capitalists here on this forum that is anti capitalist that, despite otherwise insight and intelligence, suddenly believe in the marvels of modern pharma making mega hella progress for ill people everywhere the most human org evar!!! because it gives them the opportunity to attack animal liberation and this is honestly 99.9% of the strawmen giant stretches used by 'the left' to attack animal liberation. You all know that not a lot of animal testing holds up or is used at all, right?
http://ihaveseenanotherworld.tumblr.com/

What does research have to do with capitalism? Science is a classless procedure (in its pure form).
And after all the lab was in the university of Milan.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Let's try not to start a shit-storm comrade

If there is someone who needs to be warned is the one who began to accuse an entire movement on the acts of a few activists.
As if there is a cure for autism or that the data from those experiments would have somehow contributed to some cure.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I find it odd that there are anti capitalists here on this forum that is anti capitalist that, despite otherwise insight and intelligence, suddenly believe in the marvels of modern pharma making mega hella progress for ill people everywhere the most human org evar!!! because it gives them the opportunity to attack animal liberation and this is honestly 99.9% of the strawmen giant stretches used by 'the left' to attack animal liberation. You all know that not a lot of animal testing holds up or is used at all, right?

Yeah, I saw the same thing when some activists attacked a Monsanto GMO research lab. Why would someone not support that? It is taking away possible profit for a giant corporation, and thus an anti-capitalist act.

[Os Cangaceiros]

As if there is a cure for autism or that the data from those experiments would have somehow contributed to some cure.

All it takes is a simple google search to realize that animal testing has actually advanced the treatment for certain diseases.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

All it takes is a simple google search to realize that animal testing has actually advanced the treatment for certain diseases.

You call autism a disease?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Autism wasn't the only thing they were conducting research on.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Autism wasn't the only thing they were conducting research on.

My grandmother had alzheimer's. I lived in the same house as her since I was 7. I do not think there is a cure for that, at least not at the stage she was on in her last years.

[bricolage]

I do not think there is a cure for that, at least not at the stage she was on in her last years.
isn't that the point? that future treatment for alzheimer's would be the ability to more effectively identify it at it's early stages and prevent deterioration based on that?

I'm sceptical of 'cures' as much of the next person but i'm also even more sceptical of anyone who thinks our understanding of the human body is anywhere close to a full stop, I mean if you look at some of the advances taking place in genetics, a week today is like what a year was a decade ago.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I posted a story not that long ago on this forum about an experimental drug that has shown an ability to clear the plaque off the brains of rats infected with Alzheimer's (plaque build-up on the human brain being something that happens to Alzheimer's patients). It has the possibility for more effective treatments of the disease in humans...medical science is constantly advancing and changing.

[l'Enfermé]

They prised open the reinforced doors of the facility on the fourth floor, and two of them chained themselves by the neck to the main double doors such that any attempt to open the doors could have endangered their lives
I so would have opened the fucking doors. Anyone stupid enough to do that really deserves it.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

This guys are fucking assholes. I much prefer animal welfare to animal activism.

And besides, these guys are totally missing the point; we should be focusing on a more rounded approach mixing wasting less food/eating less meat on average (and so killing less animals), having a more equitable and efficient distribution of animal products around the globe (and so killing less animals), improving the conditions of research animals and outlawing the practices of the for-profit companies. In fact, just abolish the for-profit food companies; they are the root of the problem as they will always produce more than is necessary (and so kill more animals than necessary) and engage in unsafe and low welfare policies to cut costs.

In addition, why aren't these fuckheads talking about conservation efforts around the globe? I mean, I love rabbits and dogs and cats and it's horrid when chickens, cows etc. are battery farmed, but there is also the very real (and perhaps more immediate) issue of whole species becoming extinct due to un-natural (i.e. human) intervention around the world, interfering in their habitats, poaching and killing them for their bones, skin etc.

[Ele'ill]

This guys are fucking assholes. I much prefer animal welfare to animal activism.

First of all there is a difference between animal activism, animal welfare, and animal liberation. I don't know what that means regarding this conversation and I think it's kind of a side topic at this point.


And besides, these guys are totally missing the point; we should be focusing on a more rounded approach mixing wasting less food/eating less meat on average (and so killing less animals), having a more equitable and efficient distribution of animal products around the globe (and so killing less animals), improving the conditions of research animals and outlawing the practices of the for-profit companies.

Right but this becomes commodified just as 'earth movements' and every other movement has and relies on the idea that there is such a thing as sustainable or ethical oppression. If you're talking about agitate, educate, organize that's already being done pretty well the globe over more importantly there is a growing notion of no compromise because that's exactly what it becomes. The people, and I don't know if I would consider these folks here a part of this group, that are engaged in animal liberation to whatever extent aren't stupid and are often just as involved in human related social and political issues.


In fact, just abolish the for-profit food companies; they are the root of the problem as they will always produce more than is necessary (and so kill more animals than necessary) and engage in unsafe and low welfare policies to cut costs.

Now we're talking. This goes for pharma corps. and every other industry on the planet. Not saying industries should be abolished, not saying that they shouldn't be abolished either. This was my original point kind of, that research even at a retail marketing level in grocery stores and local pharmacies is entirely geared around profit and it baffles me that despite all the discussion about it that suddenly when pharmaceutical corporations are brought up, and their research partners are brought up, that nooooo it's not about capital anymore.


In addition, why aren't these fuckheads talking about conservation efforts around the globe?

Many are but many are extremely critical of conservation, animal welfare and animal adoption etc.. because, it is a business.


I mean, I love rabbits and dogs and cats and it's horrid when chickens, cows etc. are battery farmed, but there is also the very real (and perhaps more immediate) issue of whole species becoming extinct due to un-natural (i.e. human) intervention around the world, interfering in their habitats, poaching and killing them for their bones, skin etc.

I think part of the issues is access to vehicles of change, they don't exist in a lot of places in the world although many people still try, and probably the biggest issue is with the vehicles of 'change' or conservation themselves. They are often very much a 'win ground for now lose double somewhere else'.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Nice to see lots of people here - people who would normally claim to be able to think for themselves - foaming at the mouth at some bullshit story from a radical right wing website.

First off, keep some perspective. Whatever you think of what these activists did, note that no one died or even got hurt. The article is written such that those reading it are supposed to emotionally "respond" as if the activists had actually gone round murdering the autistic, or gone round slaughtering children indiscriminately. Thus the hysterical calls by some to hang to death people who had inflicted no physical harm whatever on any human or any animals. (If this was your first reaction, then please retreat back to your underground lair to sober up, then come back and reread the thing, moron).

And note: who is actually being harmed here? The animals that are bred in a lab to have serious debilitating diseases from birth, who are then almost certainly killed off when they are no longer useful to the research. We are probably talking many hundreds of rats, who live and exist in absolute agony for perhaps a month - a tiny fraction of their natural lifespan.

Secondly: bother to sit back and think about the scientific precepts that justify such research. What do we really think testing the genetic coding of rats (or whatever the hell they think they're doing) can actually tell us about the everyday, working, social lives of children or grown adults with autism? I'm just a layman, but for my part I'll say... probably very little.

The nature of professional scientific research is this: funding is acquired by results attained. The more "obvious" or "pin-down-able" the results, the easier it is to make your case to funding bodies, and the more money for your university. This has meant that research tends towards experiments that produce hard-data, quantifiable stuff, numbers to decimal places and pie carts, etc. This means science based on extremely reductionist epistemological assumptions about how human beings function, and this means experiments using animals. (The same reductionism is true in social science btw, as we see the dominance of math and logaritm heavy economics in university departments.... and look where that has got us, in terms of understanding the real world!)

If your attitude to treating people with mental health issues, from autism to clinical depression, or whatever it is, is "you can take a pill for it!" then you might have more sympathy with this kind of research than I do. But in reality, I believe these are extremely complex conditions that require a holistic approach. I believe it naive at best, futile at worst, to think that causing mutations in rat DNA - so you can measure how distressed they behave in their cages, doped up on various mind-bending substances - is going to lead the way to finding a cure for these human mental issues (and perhaps induce a general state of euphoria amongst all of humanity, if you believe some people's posts!)

So yeah, in conclusion: these activists are probably a lot more sane than you think.

[Lord Hargreaves]

And yes, I second the comments of other posters: treating autism as a disease is patronising and actually pretty disgusting. It is also, as I said in my massively long rant above, an attempt to shoehorn every human condition into a reductionist framework where there only exists "disease" and "cure".

You also don't see the influence of gigantic pharmaceutical companies on this kind of research. They don't want to alleviate the suffering of their fellow human beings, they want to design a pill they can sell which has some "science" they can print on the packaging.

And boo fucking hoo the crying research students and the damaged lab equipment. Awwww diddums. When anti-capitalist revolutionaries - who would otherwise have no problem justifying beating up a cop or launching a hugely bloody revolutionary war - start catching feelings over this stuff, you can tell that double-standards are at work.

[Klaatu]

Since these so-called "animal rights" vandals are so concerned with testing being done on animals,
along with any associated discomfort, pain and suffering, death, etc. Perhaps then, they themselves
ought to volunteer to be the test subjects?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Since these so-called "animal rights" vandals are so concerned with testing being done on animals,
along with any associated discomfort, pain and suffering, death, etc. Perhaps then, they themselves
ought to volunteer to be the test subjects?

Are you being serious or trolling? Please oh please just say you're trolling...

[Lord Hargreaves]

Since these so-called "animal rights" vandals are so concerned with testing being done on animals,
along with any associated discomfort, pain and suffering, death, etc. Perhaps then, they themselves
ought to volunteer to be the test subjects?

If you believe in the research so much, why don't you volunteer to be a human guinea pig? :blink:

This is the thing... if this research really was the key to curing this whole menu of diseases and conditions - the silver bullet to abolishing human illness and frailty and creating a utopian world - then why don't we test on humans? On a baseline utilitarian basis it would be justified. That we don't do so suggests we don't really believe the hype.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think people just (rightly, IMO) believe that the lives of mice are worth less than the lives of humans. It's a subjective determination but there you have it.

[Crixus]

If you believe in the research so much, why don't you volunteer to be a human guinea pig? :blink:

This is the thing... if this research really was the key to curing this whole menu of diseases and conditions - the silver bullet to abolishing human illness and frailty and creating a utopian world - then why don't we test on humans? On a baseline utilitarian basis it would be justified. That we don't do so suggests we don't really believe the hype.
Clinical trials exist but they first have to make sure drugs aren't some sort of poisonous cryptonite and, well, they have to fist show promise in animal trials. My mother has early Alzheimers and I'd gladly torture some rats to spare her from the death that late Alzhiemers brings. Doctors gave her 6 years to live. Bring on the rats, monkeys, tigers, house cats, dogs I don't care. I'll club a baby seal if I had to. If I could spare her that sort of death. Now is the worst of it for her because she knows what she's in for. Wait till you age a bit and family members and friends start dying. You'll change your little ideological tune real quick.

[Kenco Smooth]

If you believe in the research so much, why don't you volunteer to be a human guinea pig? :blink:

This is the thing... if this research really was the key to curing this whole menu of diseases and conditions - the silver bullet to abolishing human illness and frailty and creating a utopian world - then why don't we test on humans? On a baseline utilitarian basis it would be justified. That we don't do so suggests we don't really believe the hype.

What a dumb argument. Yes on a utilitarian basis it may very well be justified to use human subjects alone in the develop of medicine if that was our only option. Fact is it's not, we have a plethora of options to avoid the pain and suffering that would needlessly cause, animal testing being a major option.

And no-one claimed any of the ridiculous claims you're making (utopian wolrd, yadah yadah), the humility of the medical science community is often startling and is born of the fact that these people actually engage in the reality of the pain and misery that such illnesses can cause and are dedicated to stopping it. Unlike you who seems plenty pleased to just spout off ill-informed talking points and fallacious arguments.

[Lord Hargreaves]

I think people just (rightly, IMO) believe that the lives of mice are worth less than the lives of humans. It's a subjective determination but there you have it.

Very rarely, if ever, is it as simple as that. That's kind of the whole point. Vivisection opponents have always argued that the scientific gains made through animal expectation have been (and are) minimal at best. So actually it isn't "humans versus rats"

Proponents of such experimentation are always arguing that the next huge, earth-shattering breakthrough in scientific understanding is just round the corner if we could only maim and kill a few more thousand rats and bunny rabbits. Don't believe the hype - or at least, be sceptical.

[Lord Hargreaves]

What a dumb argument. Yes on a utilitarian basis it may very well be justified to use human subjects alone in the develop of medicine if that was our only option. Fact is it's not, we have a plethora of options to avoid the pain and suffering that would needlessly cause, animal testing being a major option.

I was only playing Devil's Advocate here against some troll, but unfortunately it seems you weren't smart enough to realise.

For the record, I don't believe in killing any animal, human or nonhuman, as part of any scientific experiment.


And no-one claimed any of the ridiculous claims you're making (utopian wolrd, yadah yadah), the humility of the medical science community is often startling and is born of the fact that these people actually engage in the reality of the pain and misery that such illnesses can cause and are dedicated to stopping it. Unlike you who seems plenty pleased to just spout off ill-informed talking points and fallacious arguments.

Well yes, this tends to be how scientists view their own work, as an exercise in "humility". But I see no evidence of this virtue in the behaviour of people who breed rats to have no functioning immune system.

People who care for those with autism, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's - yes, they are humble, loving human beings. But these people tend to be the relatives, friends, nurses, healthcare workers, and not those who work for pharmaceutical giants and corporate-funded universities.

[Kenco Smooth]

Proponents of such experimentation are always arguing that the next huge, earth-shattering breakthrough in scientific understanding is just round the corner if we could only maim and kill a few more thousand rats and bunny rabbits. Don't believe the hype - or at least, be sceptical.

I've seen no-one but you present this view. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with medical science would be well aware of how patently false this is and how arduous and hard fought for many of the most important findings have been to discover.


I was only playing Devil's Advocate here against some troll, but unfortunately it seems you weren't smart enough to realise.

Devil's advocate or not it was a stupid argument, so I'll stand by my previous post. What a stupid argument to make.


For the record, I don't believe in killing any animal, human or nonhuman, as part of any scientific experiment.


Well we might as well shut up shop with this whole medical science lark then, guess it's been a good run. You do also realise that if we followed your wishes diabetes would still remain as fatal as it was before the discovery of insulin; just one of the treatable diseases that would continue to cause wide-scale suffering without the use of animal research.



Well yes, this tends to be how scientists view their own work, as an exercise in "humility". But I see no evidence of this virtue in the behaviour of people who breed rats to have no functioning immune system.


Well that's gotta be the biggest non-sequitur I've seen in a good while. Scientists breed nude/knockout mice therefor they are not humble. Want to expand on that one a bit?



People who care for those with autism, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's - yes, they are humble, loving human beings. But these people tend to be the relatives, friends, nurses, healthcare workers, and not those who work for pharmaceutical giants and corporate-funded universities.

Yet another non-sequitur, providing care for someone suffering from serious illness is a praise worthy act but in no way does it follow that the individual is humble.

And oh no, boos and hisses at the ready folks, it's the corporations and big pharma! You really don't have a point do you? I suppose the metaphysical evil of the corporations money infuses the research, killing animals and making all findings useless for human use.

And as an aside you are aware that becoming a research scientist is just about one of the worst career choices an individual with the aptitude and skills to acquire a Phd could make? The work is poorly paid, extremely competitive, requires huge investments of time and energy and is ultimately extremely unstable for 90% of those who make it their career. Want to explain what drives a person to persist in such a career if not a genuine wish to advance the understanding and treatment of illness?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Why test on innocent animals when there are rapists and murderers?

[Quail]

Why test on innocent animals when there are rapists and murderers?
I'd rather we didn't test on animals, but... really?

[Fourth Internationalist]

I'd rather we didn't test on animals, but... really?

It's just a question for those that are for animal testing. Like, why should we test on animals that did nothing to deserve to be put thru, often, immense pain when there are murderers and torturers and other horrible people? I don't think we should but it's more logical than animal testing if you belive that animal testing is necessary.

[Ele'ill]

I think the point of opposition to animal testing and animal industry is the emotional distress and physical pain associated with the alienation of being imprisoned and what people would/do go through is probably a heightened form of that. I am opposed to prison, prison industry and would def. be opposed to mandatory forced prison medical experimentation on people.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Well, hold up, what kind of research are we talking? Autism Awareness Month, and any kind of "cure" research or rhetoric is widely opposed by autistic activists. We tend to understand ourselves as more of a natural variation on human neurodiversity, not a disease, and we consider any sort of "cure" research to be pretty much in the vein of eugenics.

While I'm sure that this isn't why these folks did it, they may have accidentally stumbled onto doing something that's at least partly awesome.

(For the record, I haven't seen much similar sentiment wrt schizophrenia, so poo poo on them for destroying that.)

Best Post of the Week! :D

[Lord Hargreaves]

I've seen no-one but you present this view. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with medical science would be well aware of how patently false this is and how arduous and hard fought for many of the most important findings have been to discover.

I'm not belittling advances in medicine. But I am suggesting that the supposed heroism of such scientific endeavour (as was taking place in Milan and happens elsewhere) isn't all its cracked up to be.

And I don't care much for this "everyone knows..." rhetoric. Clearly, everyone doesn't know. These scientists might view themselves as humble, engaging in arduous struggle for new understanding, or whatever, but then that in itself isn't very surprising.


Devil's advocate or not it was a stupid argument, so I'll stand by my previous post. What a stupid argument to make.

I don't see why its a stupid argument. You would presumably get much better results with live human subjects than with rats (especially given the kinds of problems being tackled with). The squeamishness surrounding such a suggestion reveals a lack of faith in the research.

Your earlier response was that my raising this point is moot, because we can get results just as good by using rats. I think that is probably false, but it is anyway dodging the issue. If we, hypothetically, had good reason to think otherwise, you would presumably give the green light to (say) forcing criminals or the mentally handicapped to be subjects of painful clinical experiments.

My argument is that such practices, whatever their supposed benefits might be, are simply unacceptable within a civilised society. I am just extenting this idea to include all vivisection, whether on human or nonhuman animals.


Well we might as well shut up shop with this whole medical science lark then, guess it's been a good run. You do also realise that if we followed your wishes diabetes would still remain as fatal as it was before the discovery of insulin; just one of the treatable diseases that would continue to cause wide-scale suffering without the use of animal research.

Medical science isn't just animal experimentation, so I don't see how arguing to move away from vivisection is the same as abandoning medicine altogether


Well that's gotta be the biggest non-sequitur I've seen in a good while. Scientists breed nude/knockout mice therefor they are not humble. Want to expand on that one a bit?

You said humility is a strong part of the ethos of the medical community, and I replied that if this is what they're doing, then I don't see the humility. Perhaps then you could elaborate on what you meant by "humility" the first time around. It seems pretty clear to me that to treat nonhuman animals in such ways is not to be respectful, and not to be humble.


And oh no, boos and hisses at the ready folks, it's the corporations and big pharma! You really don't have a point do you? I suppose the metaphysical evil of the corporations money infuses the research, killing animals and making all findings useless for human use.

Well, I'm a communist as well as being anti-vivisection, so my view of corporations engaged in animal experiments is coloured by my political views on corporations in general.

To put it bluntly: No, "big pharma" doesn't give a shit about animals, and only gives a shit about human beings insofar as they have the funds to buy their products. These are for-profit businesses.

So no, I'm not convinced that their funding of animal experimentation is purely an altruistic exercise in bettering the health and wellbeing of humanity... any more than I think the CEO of McDonalds is there because he feels a deep personal vocation to feed the starving and needy of the world.


And as an aside you are aware that becoming a research scientist is just about one of the worst career choices an individual with the aptitude and skills to acquire a Phd could make? The work is poorly paid, extremely competitive, requires huge investments of time and energy and is ultimately extremely unstable for 90% of those who make it their career. Want to explain what drives a person to persist in such a career if not a genuine wish to advance the understanding and treatment of illness?

That's a fair point. But the precariousness of employment in the industry can enhance the need for "immediate results", which is something that can be counterproductive. It isn't greed as such that's the problem, especially not with the research staff.

[Tenka]

It's just a question for those that are for animal testing. Like, why should we test on animals that did nothing to deserve to be put thru, often, immense pain when there are murderers and torturers and other horrible people? I don't think we should but it's more logical than animal testing if you belive that animal testing is necessary.

That is cruel and unusual punishment, and I don't know how you can breed "murderers and torturers" with Alzheimer's or severe autism (which I assume was what was done in the case of the animals).

As well, I don't think rats and their families and friends are particularly grieved by neuro-degeneration or autism spectrum disorders (the latter of which it is in many cases insensitive, insulting and faddish for humans to be grieved by).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Very rarely, if ever, is it as simple as that. That's kind of the whole point. Vivisection opponents have always argued that the scientific gains made through animal expectation have been (and are) minimal at best. So actually it isn't "humans versus rats"

Problem is that argument is pure crap. Eventually at some point, a new medication or surgical procedure needs to be administered to an actual living organism that at least somewhat resembles a human being in all salient features. This means that animal testing is an important stage of development in chemistry, pharmacology and surgery.


Proponents of such experimentation are always arguing that the next huge, earth-shattering breakthrough in scientific understanding is just round the corner if we could only maim and kill a few more thousand rats and bunny rabbits. Don't believe the hype - or at least, be sceptical.

Or you could understand the real reason for animal testing, which is that it's an important tool for determining the biological effects of a chemical substance or surgical procedure. Computer models and cell cultures and all the other stuff that anti-test advocates throw out as supposed "alternatives" are in fact different tools for different developmental stages that together, along with animal testing, constitute a comprehensive toolbox which has a greater combined power than the mere sum of its parts. Removing the tool of animal testing would serve to make the entire toolbox that much less effective, slowing research and quite possibly putting actual human beings in danger, or at least more danger than they would otherwise have been in.

The sad irony is that in their belief that cell cultures and computer models can entirely replace live animal testing, the animal rights types are engaging in a display of scientific reductionism that they would likely heavily criticise in other circumstances. Do they really think that the effects of introducing a substance into a cell culture produces anything approaching the full spectrum of effects that would happen in a macroscopic multicellular organism, with all those differentiated tissues and various bodily systems interacting on every level of scale? Certainly in order for computer modelling to replace animal testing, all of that would have to be reproduced in a digital environment, something we are nowhere near capable of doing as of yet.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Problem is that argument is pure crap. Eventually at some point, a new medication or surgical procedure needs to be administered to an actual living organism that at least somewhat resembles a human being in all salient features. This means that animal testing is an important stage of development in chemistry, pharmacology and surgery.

There are ways in which medicines can be "real life" tested by actual, volunteering, human beings. But this simply isn't what is taking place here. In the language that you used below, this would be a completely different stage in the scientific process to testing proposed cures.

In Milan, they are studying the genetics of living beings with models of the disorders/conditions autism and schizophrenia. But of course these things exist in real suffering human beings, and don't need to be "simulated" in a lab (assuming it is even really possible to engineer an authentically autistic living experience in a caged rat). Perhaps I'm entirely missing the point here - and no doubt you'll tell me if I am - but can't there be a more holistic learning process here that actually has scientists working with the people concerned?


Or you could understand the real reason for animal testing, which is that it's an important tool for determining the biological effects of a chemical substance or surgical procedure. Computer models and cell cultures and all the other stuff that anti-test advocates throw out as supposed "alternatives" are in fact different tools for different developmental stages that together, along with animal testing, constitute a comprehensive toolbox which has a greater combined power than the mere sum of its parts. Removing the tool of animal testing would serve to make the entire toolbox that much less effective, slowing research and quite possibly putting actual human beings in danger, or at least more danger than they would otherwise have been in.

The sad irony is that in their belief that cell cultures and computer models can entirely replace live animal testing, the animal rights types are engaging in a display of scientific reductionism that they would likely heavily criticise in other circumstances. Do they really think that the effects of introducing a substance into a cell culture produces anything approaching the full spectrum of effects that would happen in a macroscopic multicellular organism, with all those differentiated tissues and various bodily systems interacting on every level of scale? Certainly in order for computer modelling to replace animal testing, all of that would have to be reproduced in a digital environment, something we are nowhere near capable of doing as of yet.

Well, in many ways, animal testing is already antiquated and getting in the way of technological advances. It would actually be less expensive and more efficient to use "cell cultures and computer models," which you seem to argue against just because you yourself find it intuitively implausible that they would produce good results. We have not yet reached the stage where the over-dependence on animal testing is patently retarding scientific process, but this is much different to saying that animal testing is indispensable.

And finally, to reiterate the classic anti-vivisectionist argument: if rats are alike enough to humans that we can use them to increase our understanding of humans (of biological processes that rats share with homo sapiens), then how can we so confidently exclude them from any moral consideration? If they didn't suffer (and get better/respond to treatments) in roughly the same way as humans do, they would be of no scientific value - and as Bentham put it, the question "Can they suffer?" this is the key to moral worth

[Dropdead]

Destroy many years of research for a couple of mice lives? Fucking idiots.

[Kenco Smooth]

I'm not belittling advances in medicine. But I am suggesting that the supposed heroism of such scientific endeavour (as was taking place in Milan and happens elsewhere) isn't all its cracked up to be.

And I don't care much for this "everyone knows..." rhetoric. Clearly, everyone doesn't know. These scientists might view themselves as humble, engaging in arduous struggle for new understanding, or whatever, but then that in itself isn't very surprising.


Youre right, everyone doesn't know. Some people in their complete ignorance of the project believe that medical advances just fall of trees and that current methods are used for purely arbitrary reasons rather than because they're essential to the process. hence why I said "Anyone with even a passing familiarity with medical science".



I don't see why its a stupid argument. You would presumably get much better results with live human subjects than with rats (especially given the kinds of problems being tackled with). The squeamishness surrounding such a suggestion reveals a lack of faith in the research.


All research is dangerous hence the use of non-human subjects in early stages. The possibility for harmful consequences is always present in untested treatments regardless of potential outcomes. The fact we don't want to use human subjects is because we're realistic about that possibility, not because we don't think results are likely (if that was believed then why on earth would the research be getting funded in the first place?).



Your earlier response was that my raising this point is moot, because we can get results just as good by using rats. I think that is probably false, but it is anyway dodging the issue. If we, hypothetically, had good reason to think otherwise, you would presumably give the green light to (say) forcing criminals or the mentally handicapped to be subjects of painful clinical experiments.


Nowhere did I say that results are the same using human and animal testing. They do differ and that's why they're both used at different stages of the process. The rest of your post is simply attributing views to me that are without base. I never accepted the utilitarian principle you hypothesised as a basis for running society and further if I had that in no way would imply carrying out initial stage research on prisoners and the mentally ill (seriously where did oyu get that last bit from?)



My argument is that such practices, whatever their supposed benefits might be, are simply unacceptable within a civilised society. I am just extenting this idea to include all vivisection, whether on human or nonhuman animals.


Then you're placing the lives of rats (whose living conditions are regulated pretty damn strictly by ethics committees) over suffering human beings. If you had your way the initial research into diabetes that has saved millions of lives over the course of the twentieth century (in animals as well as humans remember) could never had occurred because you would have seen no possible justification for causing the onset of diabetes in ten dogs. Ten dogs. More dogs than that are saved weekly thanks to insulin treatments.



Medical science isn't just animal experimentation, so I don't see how arguing to move away from vivisection is the same as abandoning medicine altogether


Because the alternative is using humans to see what the effects are of often volatile and untested treatments. This would be needlessly cruel when animals which present lower levels of cognition are available. In a perfect world we wouldn't need to use animals, but it's not a perfect world.



You said humility is a strong part of the ethos of the medical community, and I replied that if this is what they're doing, then I don't see the humility. Perhaps then you could elaborate on what you meant by "humility" the first time around. It seems pretty clear to me that to treat nonhuman animals in such ways is not to be respectful, and not to be humble.

The humility becomes clear when you look at the thousands of groups worldwide who go unnamed, are under rewarded for the colossal good that they do and yet are content with this situation knowing the importance of their work. And again such research is often for the best of animals as well as humans (we don't simply produce medicines for us).



Well, I'm a communist as well as being anti-vivisection, so my view of corporations engaged in animal experiments is coloured by my political views on corporations in general.


Your political views had nothing to do with it. You used a source of funding to try and smear medical scientists as though simply coming into contact with such organisations it in itself a source of moral rot.


To put it bluntly: No, "big pharma" doesn't give a shit about animals, and only gives a shit about human beings insofar as they have the funds to buy their products. These are for-profit businesses.

So no, I'm not convinced that their funding of animal experimentation is purely an altruistic exercise in bettering the health and wellbeing of humanity... any more than I think the CEO of McDonalds is there because he feels a deep personal vocation to feed the starving and needy of the world.



Oh come off it. The point wasn't an anti-corproate argument nor conerned with the efficacy of such research. You brought funding sources into it purely in contrast to care-providers in order to try and smear by association scientists who typically work in very undesirable conditions for their skill level.


That's a fair point. But the precariousness of employment in the industry can enhance the need for "immediate results", which is something that can be counterproductive. It isn't greed as such that's the problem, especially not with the research staff.

Oh, I must have made a mistake when you explicitly contrasted the research staff with "humble, loving human beings".

[Fourth Internationalist]

That is cruel and unusual punishment

Yes, I know. So why is it better to be cruel to animals that did nothing wrong than on humans that have murdered?


and I don't know how you can breed "murderers and torturers" with Alzheimer's or severe autism (which I assume was what was done in the case of the animals).

There are lots of murderers, some are bound to have these things.


As well, I don't think rats and their families and friends are particularly grieved by neuro-degeneration or autism spectrum disorders (the latter of which it is in many cases insensitive, insulting and faddish for humans to be grieved by).

While its true that rats dont understand disorders, that doesnt remove their nervous system. I know I wouldnt want to be the test subject of a number of drugs and other things just because I couldnt understand whats being treated.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There are ways in which medicines can be "real life" tested by actual, volunteering, human beings. But this simply isn't what is taking place here. In the language that you used below, this would be a completely different stage in the scientific process to testing proposed cures.

Yes, the stage that comes after animal testing. You know, the stage that's important if we're to study effects without having to worry about hurting anyone in the process.


In Milan, they are studying the genetics of living beings with models of the disorders/conditions autism and schizophrenia. But of course these things exist in real suffering human beings, and don't need to be "simulated" in a lab (assuming it is even really possible to engineer an authentically autistic living experience in a caged rat). Perhaps I'm entirely missing the point here - and no doubt you'll tell me if I am - but can't there be a more holistic learning process here that actually has scientists working with the people concerned?

Because most people (i.e. everyone except people like Dr Mengele) would consider it a gross breach of ethics to test medicines on people when one doesn't know the effects they have on living organisms, as opposed to their effects on cell cultures or computer models.

With regards to autism in particular, it is a condition that is at least partly genetic and thus through specially-bred rats it can be studied in ways that would be impossible if we were limited only to ethical human testing.

I'm not too bothered by the prospect of a few thousand rats being experimented upon, if it means we gain a better understanding of the genetics and physiology of autism. Or any other condition for that matter.


Well, in many ways, animal testing is already antiquated and getting in the way of technological advances.

[citation needed]


It would actually be less expensive and more efficient to use "cell cultures and computer models," which you seem to argue against just because you yourself find it intuitively implausible that they would produce good results.

It's not intuition, they are manifestly different tools which cannot be made to be equivalent for various reasons. Unless you're seriously trying to argue that a cell culture or an abstracted computer model really is equivalent to a live organism.


We have not yet reached the stage where the over-dependence on animal testing is patently retarding scientific process, but this is much different to saying that animal testing is indispensable.

It is indispensable. Without animal testing, there is a large gap in our pharmacological and surgical toolbox where one doesn't need to be.


And finally, to reiterate the classic anti-vivisectionist argument: if rats are alike enough to humans that we can use them to increase our understanding of humans (of biological processes that rats share with homo sapiens), then how can we so confidently exclude them from any moral consideration?

Because rats aren't moral agents, unlike humans.


If they didn't suffer (and get better/respond to treatments) in roughly the same way as humans do, they would be of no scientific value - and as Bentham put it, the question "Can they suffer?" this is the key to moral worth

Rats can suffer, but I contend that they can't suffer to the same depth and degree that humans can. Rats can feel pain and anecdote suggests that they can recognise individuals (and thus presumably miss the presence of a favourite), but they simply don't have the brains to place their suffering in a wider context and to correlate that with all the wrenching details that humans consider important.

But that doesn't matter for the purposes of animal testing, since what is more important are the biochemical pathways and physiological processes that we and rats share.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

And yes, I second the comments of other posters: treating autism as a disease is patronising and actually pretty disgusting. It is also, as I said in my massively long rant above, an attempt to shoehorn every human condition into a reductionist framework where there only exists "disease" and "cure".

And you're the one having a go at people for being affected by right wing propaganda? Seriously, the above could have been written by Hayek himself!


You also don't see the influence of gigantic pharmaceutical companies on this kind of research. They don't want to alleviate the suffering of their fellow human beings, they want to design a pill they can sell which has some "science" they can print on the packaging.

This is all good and well and I think we should all recognise this, but it doesn't follow that we should stop recognising and trying to cure human conditions, just because those who profit are big pharma corps. The point is to defeat the pharma corps and, ultimately, capitalism, not just stop treating human conditions so the pharma companies can't make money.


And boo fucking hoo the crying research students and the damaged lab equipment. Awwww diddums. When anti-capitalist revolutionaries - who would otherwise have no problem justifying beating up a cop or launching a hugely bloody revolutionary war - start catching feelings over this stuff, you can tell that double-standards are at work.[/QUOTE]

Not sure you'll find many people on here who support randomly beating up a cop for fun, or starting a 'hugely bloody' revolutionary war. The only ones who tend to do that are the teenagers from middle class households who have played too many video games and don't really understand the consequences of their actions, or the hugely irresponsible who just have some sort of war fetish.

[Fionnagáin]

And you're the one having a go at people for being affected by right wing propaganda? Seriously, the above could have been written by Hayek himself!
How so?

[Lord Hargreaves]

And you're the one having a go at people for being affected by right wing propaganda? Seriously, the above could have been written by Hayek himself!

Er, say what? Hayek wrote about autism? :confused:

I suspect you've somehow confused my rejection of animal testing with a rejection of the modern scientific paradigm altogether, as if I'm about to start advocating for various forms of pagan voodoo because medicine is just sooo bourgeois. That's really to miss the point completely :lol:

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think he may be thinking of Thomas Szasz, but I'm not sure. Hayek to the best of my knowledge never wrote about mental issues...

[Lord Hargreaves]

All research is dangerous hence the use of non-human subjects in early stages. The possibility for harmful consequences is always present in untested treatments regardless of potential outcomes. The fact we don't want to use human subjects is because we're realistic about that possibility, not because we don't think results are likely (if that was believed then why on earth would the research be getting funded in the first place?).

Well, even if all research is dangerous as you say, that doesn't tell us much. Just because there is a risk associated doesn't therefore mean that the research is justified.

Toxicology tests of new household products on rabbits (for one easy example) are clearly unjustified under any sane measure, even though I guess there is always a risk that drinking this particular toilet bleach will be much more dangerous than drinking bleaches already on the market. So instead of running this risk, we have the wonderfully humble and loving LD-50 test, so we can know for sure.

On this kind of research into serious illness, obviously there will be differences. I know about the research only through the article, so yes I'm ignorant of it (no more so than you I assume) but I just can't see where the overriding importance of minimizing risk to humans would apply in such scenarios.



Nowhere did I say that results are the same using human and animal testing. They do differ and that's why they're both used at different stages of the process. The rest of your post is simply attributing views to me that are without base. I never accepted the utilitarian principle you hypothesised as a basis for running society and further if I had that in no way would imply carrying out initial stage research on prisoners and the mentally ill (seriously where did oyu get that last bit from?)


If you assume the research is going to save lives, then would it be justified to sacrifice some human beings to get that knowledge to save the lives of many more? No, since all human beings suffer. That's my position on all vivisection, human and nonhuman, as I said.

That you would have no concern with the killing of many hundreds of thousands of animals simply because they are a different species, and differ from us in some fairly unremarkable ways, does indeed suggest an overriding utilitarianism.

You get the scaremongering of some pro-testers - who suggest that if you question the worth of some research you may as well be condemning people to death - as if they have never considered the idea that the means might not justify the ends.

If it genuinely has never occurred to you that animals might have moral worth - then sure, what I'm saying might seem quite bizarre or delusional. But if you can at least see my point of view for argument's sake, then what else is this mass sacrificing of animals for the greater good but utilitarianism, ultimately?



Then you're placing the lives of rats (whose living conditions are regulated pretty damn strictly by ethics committees) over suffering human beings. If you had your way the initial research into diabetes that has saved millions of lives over the course of the twentieth century (in animals as well as humans remember) could never had occurred because you would have seen no possible justification for causing the onset of diabetes in ten dogs. Ten dogs. More dogs than that are saved weekly thanks to insulin treatments.

I don't know how you could possibly think that the ethics committees are "strict". In the USA, where most animal testing takes place, national regulation is basically non-existent.

And actually, most animal research doesn't go into finding solutions to problems like diabetes. Even when the topic of research isn't in itself some kind of joke, there are many historical examples of animal research failing to come up with useful results - such as thalidomide, asbestos, etc. Animal research also delayed discovery of the polio vaccine. And I believe it may have been Robert Sharpe or someone who told how the tobacco industry used results from animal testing to deny the link between smoking cigarettes and getting lung cancer.



The humility becomes clear when you look at the thousands of groups worldwide who go unnamed, are under rewarded for the colossal good that they do and yet are content with this situation knowing the importance of their work. And again such research is often for the best of animals as well as humans (we don't simply produce medicines for us).

What mawkish, whiny nonsense. These people are no more special than anyone else cleaning toilets or working in Burger King to feed their families. I don't accept the suggestion that scientists are some kind of Elect, who chose their jobs because they hold to higher ideals than others.



Your political views had nothing to do with it. You used a source of funding to try and smear medical scientists as though simply coming into contact with such organisations it in itself a source of moral rot.

Well, the nature of the funding determines what research is done in the last instance. GlaxoSmithKline isn't funding animal research out of sheer curiosity. I really don't see what could be controversial about such ideas among fellow political radicals.

Of course, the research is entirely useless if they doesn't produce something in the end that in some sense works, and if there isn't demand. The same is true for McDonalds (to continue the analogy from the previous post): neither would they make profit if people weren't genuinely hungry and have a desire for the taste. But that doesn't thereby mean that this is a company that really exists for the good of humanity.

And if companies can delay the process of their product being found unfit for human use, then they might choose animal resting precisely because it is time consuming and inefficient.

I also made a point in my first post about how the competitive nature of funding induces a kind of race to the bottom:


The nature of professional scientific research is this: funding is acquired by results attained. The more "obvious" or "pin-down-able" the results, the easier it is to make your case to funding bodies, and the more money for your university. This has meant that research tends towards experiments that produce hard-data, quantifiable stuff, numbers to decimal places and pie carts, etc. This means science based on extremely reductionist epistemological assumptions about how human beings function, and this means experiments using animals. (The same reductionism is true in social science btw, as we see the dominance of math and logaritm heavy economics in university departments.... and look where that has got us, in terms of understanding the real world!)

In addition to the above: if animal testing is the norm, then funders will be looking to results from such testing to understand the benefits of continuing to fund it. Brand new scientific techniques, untried and untested, require much greater effort to explain and thus to justify, and so can lose out.



Oh, I must have made a mistake when you explicitly contrasted the research staff with "humble, loving human beings".

I did make the contrast, and I stick my it. Someone who is fine with such research is not acting in a humble, loving way, at least in my opinion.

[Klaatu]

Are you being serious or trolling? Please oh please just say you're trolling...

I am being serious



If you believe in the research so much, why don't you volunteer to be a human guinea pig? :blink:


I am not the one doing vandalism

[MarxArchist]

Why test on innocent animals when there are rapists and murderers?

Maybe get a relative of Josef Mengele to take up the procedures? Fill up the concentration camps...I mean prisons with poor people and people of color? Check. Half way there.

[mew]

I read a lot of militant vegan/animal abolitionist blogs and texts. They literally do not really differentiate between humans and animals. They think chickens, mice etc are as aware and feeling and conscious as humans. Understanding this helps make their actions make more sense I think. I feel like it's hard to discuss rationally any sort of animal rights etc issues as there's a huge Thing (not sure how to describe it) of people viscerally hating vegans/animal rights activists that I think is attached to juvenile machismo. That being said I'm not really sympathetic to animal rights though there's studies that show animals are more conscious than generally assumed plus that animal testing is often unnecessarily cruel and ineffective.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I'm going to go further than soso, I hope these bastards get hanged. Every year this research is delayed, that's another million people more who have to suffer these diseases. So I don't think it's hyperbole to say that these people deserve a good old fashion lynching.

Oh yea, and fuck who ever is offended by that. Seriously, mental disorders are real things that ruin the lives of millions of real people. So fuck you animal rights people, and fuck you pseudo leftists.
Nice to know all it takes is some animal rights activists to reveal that some here are reactionaries. If you're calling for people to be hanged, are you calling for the bourgeois state to do this? Vigilantes? Fuck. You.

[Fionnagáin]

I am not the one doing vandalism
Because if there's one thing that communists hate, it's property damage.

[Dropdead]

Is there actually someone on this forum that supports this attack? I'd love to know.

[rednordman]

Is there actually someone on this forum that supports this attack? I'd love to know.remarkably its seems so. seriously these activist really wont be happy until we are doing these tests on humans. strange sad twisted people. imo. and anyway, advocating using serious criminals for scientific testing is the sort of thing that gives the BNP wet dreams.

[Dropdead]

What do you ''activists'' think if after you have ''rescued'' the mice, they die in 2 days? First destroy years of research, the mice die 2 days later. Great fucking job!

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I like it when universities get trashed. Whateva, rich-kid med students.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

What do you ''activists'' think if after you have ''rescued'' the mice, they die in 2 days? First destroy years of research, the mice die 2 days later. Great fucking job!

Would it matter if they lived happily ever after in an enchanted forest or something? They wanted to stop the tests on the animals and they did.

[Lord Hargreaves]

remarkably its seems so. seriously these activist really wont be happy until we are doing these tests on humans. strange sad twisted people. imo. and anyway, advocating using serious criminals for scientific testing is the sort of thing that gives the BNP wet dreams.

Actually the "lets cut open criminals for scientific experiments!" thing was an attempt to play Devil's Advocate. Unfortunately it went over most people's heads and they took it literally. I'm slightly offended that some genuinely now think animal activists want to set up human concentration camps on university campuses for medical research, but I guess such is the danger of people skim reading posts :rolleyes:

To be clear: since I/we don't really think the research will produce anything of value anyway, using human beings in the experiments instead of animals would obviously be nonsensical.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

How so?

His criticism of the idea that for every problem there has to be a policy prescription. It runs core to the New Right ideas of Hayek, Von Mises etc., that there is no such thing as justice or injustice in terms of outcomes, rather that justice or injustice only applies to means (hence markets, freedom, liberty, minimal state involvement in the lives of people etc).

Autism is a recognised disorder along the autism spectrum and as such, it is best that there is research into it, that there are strategies to deal with autism particularly in early years etc. Sweeping it under the rug is at best somewhat ignorant, at worst malevolent and either way, totally mindless.

[rednordman]

Thing is, these animal rights activists have some really strange ideas about what constitutes 'justice'. Not far from where i'm from there was this protest where the ARAs decided to dig up the remains of some woman who had died recently. The woman was not even one of the owners, she was just a close relative of the owner. It was really strange driving past those people campaigning at the side of the road, knowing what they did. it wasnt just that either, they also sent bombs to some of the local residents and smashed shit up...all that for a bunch of guinea pigs!! not for revolution or bettering society of people, just for those guinea pigs. WTF.

[rednordman]

Actually the "lets cut open criminals for scientific experiments!" thing was an attempt to play Devil's Advocate. Unfortunately it went over most people's heads and they took it literally. I'm slightly offended that some genuinely now think animal activists want to set up human concentration camps on university campuses for medical research, but I guess such is the danger of people skim reading posts :rolleyes:

To be clear: since I/we don't really think the research will produce anything of value anyway, using human beings in the experiments instead of animals would obviously be nonsensical.No i can appreciate your argument, just I have never ever come across 'reasonable' animal rights activists. They all are WAY too gung ho in their approach to activism. I'm sure there must be alot who are very reasonable, but sadly, I have only seen the negative side.

[Dropdead]

No i can appreciate your argument, just I have never ever come across 'reasonable' animal rights activists. They all are WAY too gung ho in their approach to activism. I'm sure there must be alot who are very reasonable, but sadly, I have only seen the negative side.
This. The only ''Animal Activists'' I have seen in real life have just been as idiotic as these mice rescuers. I know there are good animal activists out there, I just haven't met any.

[Fionnagáin]

I'm sure most of them could say the same thing about reds.

[rednordman]

I'm sure most of them could say the same thing about reds.And not a single fuck would be given. I'm sorry.

But seriously, your not honestly trying to compare the level of action from animal rights activists to that of the left-wing are you?

[Dropdead]

I'm sure most of them could say the same thing about reds.

And why is that? Do you think all of them are anti-communist right-wing dumbasses? No. Most of them identified themselves ''Green Anarchists who rescue animals'' (That's what they said)

[Fionnagáin]

And not a single fuck would be given. I'm sorry.

But seriously, your not honestly trying to compare the level of action from animal rights activists to that of the left-wing are you?
I'm trying to say that they're both 90% arseholes.

[rednordman]

I'm trying to say that they're both 90% arseholes.its not a case of what they are like personally. its more about the validity of their actions, and more importantly how they are perceived by the rest of the world. A lot of people dont like "reds". but at least respect their opinions and understand that they have an idea/vision to affect everyone in some way or another. Some of these ARAs would quite literally kill a human to save a mouse.

When that woman's body was dug up and used to request a ransom, it totally alienated the whole of the county from the cause. And you must bear in mind that A lot of people believe in animal rights and ethical practice. But that just ended up in loosing a mass of support. And sadly, now when people think of the animal right's movement, all they think of the really bad stuff they have done.

Yes you could say that people do the same with "reds" but that is only one side of the political spectrum really. Animal rights activists seem to have alienated everyone.

[Dropdead]

its not a case of what they are like personally. its more about the validity of their actions, and more importantly how they are perceived by the rest of the world. A lot of people dont like "reds". but at least respect their opinions and understand that they have an idea/vision to affect everyone in some way or another. Some of these ARAs would quite literally kill a human to save a mouse.

When that woman's body was dug up and used to request a ransom, it totally alienated the whole of the county from the cause. And you must bear in mind that A lot of people believe in animal rights and ethical practice. But that just ended up in loosing a mass of support. And sadly, now when people think of the animal right's movement, all they think of the really bad stuff they have done.

Yes you could say that people do the same with "reds" but that is only one side of the political spectrum really. Animal rights activists seem to have alienated everyone.

This is so true. What's the point of even rescuing the mice? I mean, you rescue the mice then what? You just let them into the woods after being in a laboratory for maybe their whole life? I'm sorry but It's just kind of senseless to do that.

[Klaatu]

If you believe in the research so much, why don't you volunteer to be a human guinea pig? :blink:

Your comment does not even make sense (are you capable of an original thought?) Why in the world would I offer myself as a 'guinea pig' for pharmaceuticals-testing, when there are real guinea pigs for that purpose? I support animal-testing. There is nothing wrong with animal-research, as long as it is done for life-saving or medicinal purposes, not for frivolous ones (cosmetics, for example)


This is so true. What's the point of even rescuing the mice? I mean, you rescue the mice then what? You just let them into the woods after being in a laboratory for maybe their whole life? I'm sorry but It's just kind of senseless to do that.

When let into the woods, the mice immediately get eaten by a predator (cat, owl, etc)

[Fionnagáin]

its not a case of what they are like personally. its more about the validity of their actions, and more importantly how they are perceived by the rest of the world. A lot of people dont like "reds". but at least respect their opinions and understand that they have an idea/vision to affect everyone in some way or another. Some of these ARAs would quite literally kill a human to save a mouse.

When that woman's body was dug up and used to request a ransom, it totally alienated the whole of the county from the cause. And you must bear in mind that A lot of people believe in animal rights and ethical practice. But that just ended up in loosing a mass of support. And sadly, now when people think of the animal right's movement, all they think of the really bad stuff they have done.

Yes you could say that people do the same with "reds" but that is only one side of the political spectrum really. Animal rights activists seem to have alienated everyone.
People prefer the reds because they're happy to play reformists and work within the system. People don't like the animal liberationists because they flout the system and go for direct action. Likewise, people like moderate animal rights groups because they work with the system, and they don't like workers taking direct action. Doubtless, the particular character of their ends and means plays into the exact image people have of them, but in times like these, with no visible working class movement and a political establishment even more neurotic than usual, that's where most people draw their lines.

Trying to approach this is a question of image means accepting the liberal's premise that the approval of "the public", whoever they are, is a precondition of legitimate action. To which we as communist can only say: fuck that.

[Lord Hargreaves]

No i can appreciate your argument, just I have never ever come across 'reasonable' animal rights activists. They all are WAY too gung ho in their approach to activism. I'm sure there must be alot who are very reasonable, but sadly, I have only seen the negative side.

I don't really know what to say to this - what's a "reasonable" animal rights activist? Someone who plays by the law and doesn't make a scene?

Actually, these constitute the vast majority: people who write letters, donate to compliant "bourgeois" charities that your mom could be comfortable with, or just do nothing at all. In fact its the same with revolutionary communists, where the internet generals make up the vast majority.

[Dropdead]

I don't really know what to say to this - what's a "reasonable" animal rights activist? Someone who plays by the law and doesn't make a scene?

Actually, these constitute the vast majority: people who write letters, donate to compliant "bourgeois" charities that your mom could be comfortable with, or just do nothing at all. In fact its the same with revolutionary communists, where the internet generals make up the vast majority.

I think it's ok if Animal Activists for example rescue cows who are going to be slaughtered, but I don't like idiots who destroy years of research fot a few mice lives (which have probably spent their whole life inside the laboratory)

[Lord Hargreaves]

I think it's ok if Animal Activists for example rescue cows who are going to be slaughtered, but I don't like idiots who destroy years of research fot a few mice lives (which have probably spent their whole life inside the laboratory)

Presumably the point was to prevent more rats being bred as part of the research (and to make a "statement" about it, as well as cause financial damage to the university) rather than to save the lives of the existing rats, which can't survive outside the lab because they are "immune suppressed"

[Dropdead]

Presumably the point was to prevent more rats being bred as part of the research (and to make a "statement" about it, as well as cause financial damage to the university) rather than to save the lives of the existing rats, which can't survive outside the lab because they are "immune suppressed"
Just burn the whole fucking university then.

But seriously, this ''attack'' was just senseless and people only got mad, except for some supporters on these forums.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well, even if all research is dangerous as you say, that doesn't tell us much. Just because there is a risk associated doesn't therefore mean that the research is justified.

Toxicology tests of new household products on rabbits (for one easy example) are clearly unjustified under any sane measure, even though I guess there is always a risk that drinking this particular toilet bleach will be much more dangerous than drinking bleaches already on the market. So instead of running this risk, we have the wonderfully humble and loving LD-50 test, so we can know for sure.

And yet, every time we hear of the actions of these animal rights activists, they are targeting research efforts with primarily medical (e.g. research into mental conditions) rather than commercial objectives (e.g. household bleach testing).

Why is that?

[Lord Hargreaves]

Just burn the whole fucking university then.

But seriously, this ''attack'' was just senseless and people only got mad, except for some supporters on these forums.

Just a question: would you still oppose the methods if you agreed with the cause? Are you against direct action per se? Because you seem to be hung up on that, rather than bothering to engage with the issues involved.


And yet, every time we hear of the actions of these animal rights activists, they are targeting research efforts with primarily medical (e.g. research into mental conditions) rather than commercial objectives (e.g. household bleach testing).

Why is that?

I don't know if that's true to be honest. Its more likely that it just makes a better "news story" when medical research is hit, so that's why you get to hear about it from journalists. But then Hot Air is a rabid, hysterical right-wing news site, so I wouldn't necessarily use them to generalize.

And in terms of tactics, the fight against testing cosmetics and household products on animals is largely being won by campaigners, so I'd guess direct action is increasingly less important there than methods of conventional protest.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't know if that's true to be honest. Its more likely that it just makes a better "news story" when medical research is hit, so that's why you get to hear about it from journalists. But then Hot Air is a rabid, hysterical right-wing news site, so I wouldn't necessarily use them to generalize.

I haven't even visited the Hot Air website linked to in the OP. I used the link to the article on Nature.


And in terms of tactics, the fight against testing cosmetics and household products on animals is largely being won by campaigners, so I'd guess direct action is increasingly less important there than methods of conventional protest.

I thought it was received wisdom among "animal rights" types that such tactics do not achieve anything of substance? If such tactics work against commercial research, then why aren't they employed against university departments?

[Dropdead]

Just a question: would you still oppose the methods if you agreed with the cause? Are you against direct action per se? Because you seem to be hung up on that, rather than bothering to engage with the issues involved.



I don't know if that's true to be honest. Its more likely that it just makes a better "news story" when medical research is hit, so that's why you get to hear about it from journalists. But then Hot Air is a rabid, hysterical right-wing news site, so I wouldn't necessarily use them to generalize.

And in terms of tactics, the fight against testing cosmetics and household products on animals is largely being won by campaigners, so I'd guess direct action is increasingly less important there than methods of conventional protest.

I'll say this just once: I fucking love direct action, but what I think is that they should of destroyed an animal-testing lab that tests perfume, make-up, etc on animals instead of a research lab that has a few mice in there.

[Fionnagáin]

Well, in this case, it's probably because most such practices are prohibited under EU law anyway. Can't burn down what isn't there.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Scientists say, "Medical research!" but mean "Oh no! My tenure!"
Their private sector funders think "Oh no! Our investment!" but say "Think of the children!"
And the military . . .

[Skyhilist]

http://ljconstantine.com/babycakes/page1.htm

[Crixus]

There are ways in which medicines can be "real life" tested by actual, volunteering, human beings. But this simply isn't what is taking place here. In the language that you used below, this would be a completely different stage in the scientific process to testing proposed cures.

In Milan, they are studying the genetics of living beings with models of the disorders/conditions autism and schizophrenia. But of course these things exist in real suffering human beings, and don't need to be "simulated" in a lab (assuming it is even really possible to engineer an authentically autistic living experience in a caged rat). Perhaps I'm entirely missing the point here -


http://www.alzheimer-europe.org/Research/Understanding-dementia-research/Clinical-trials/Phases-of-clinical-trials

I'm going to try to remain civil and say it again. Human trials (clinical trials) can't get approval until the procedures/drugs have been tested on animals. Yes at one point they (mostly the state) tested on people without animal trials first and these conditions were sick. Disgusting. Especially with the profit angle and or military implications. Are animal experiments a pleasant thing? No. But niether is dying of AIDS, Alzheimers, Parkinsons etc. Human suffering trumps animal suffering and if you disagree now you won't when you hold a dying family member in your arms which is going to eventually happen. Maybe you should tell them to just accept it when it does happen? Think of the animals Mom. Ya, that's what I'll tell her. Or maybe we could just 'trust' the drug companies to not inject her with Draino?

My mother has Alzheimer's and I wouldn't want her ingesting every drug some pharmaceutical company is pushing without strict regulations for safety. Part of these regulations for safety is animal trials. What do you not understand about this? I've even read some animal liberation advocates and 'primitivists' say we should all just accept the cards we're dealt. Quite frankly I'd love to see your reaction when your family members start dying of horrible diseases. You'll call this post an 'appeal to emotion' but this is essentially the thought process behind 'saving the chickens'. The sad thing is the left is entwined with this sort of shifty view. Mostly lifestylist anarchists.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

[^]

Eugh. Not only is it an ill-conceived emotional appeal, it's an appeal to all the worst of of people's optimistic assumptions about "medicine", with a fair number of mass-media-worthy technophobic-anarchist-boogiemen red herrings to distract from what's actually up.

It's not as though there is some intrinsic conflict between the interests of animals and humans in this situation. There is a conflict between the existing order, which is responsible for existing health crises (not only, in some cases, the sicknesses themselves, but, more broadly, their social functions), and those whose lives serve as means to the production of surplus value (animals human and otherwise).

Sure, a university research lab may not be the most strategic point at which to attack capital, but it's not all that bad either. Universities are increasingly sites of intense accumulation and investment, and its testament to their success as a site of capitalist ideological production that a bunch of Marxists will cry foul over something like this. You know what, though? Every gooddamn capitalist project has a fucking "humanitarian" side. Would you cry foul on striking fast food workers because of the good work McDonalds does for sick children? Of course not.

[Crixus]

Eugh. Not only is it an ill-conceived emotional appeal

Your neurotic obsession with saving cute bunnies holds no weight with my obsession to minimize human suffering. My personal account, which wasn't very detailed at all, isnt an appeal to emotion. There have been real material gains from animal testing. It would be an appeal to emotion if I said "look at my poor mother, lets burn a cute bunny rabbit and throw it's ashes into the sea in order to save her from this suffering". There would be no logic in that. No material basis. No reality. The reality of what I said is animal trials are necessary to make human trials safe. It's not an appeal to emotion for me to not want to inject my mother with some drug that may kill her instantly.






it's an appeal to all the worst of of people's optimistic assumptions about "medicine", with a fair number of mass-media-worthy technophobic-anarchist-boogiemen red herrings to distract from what's actually up.

It's no secret primitivists and vegan anarchist lifestylists are a large source of direct action against 'the subjugation of animals'. The beginnings of the animal liberation movement can be traced to 'radical' leftists. Mostly anarchists.

http://anarchistnews.org/content/total-liberation-interview-walter-bond-anarchy-abortion-rights-anti-colonialism-animal

http://www.meetup.com/FAUNNJ/events/60397622/

http://lunacoyote87.wordpress.com/tag/anarcho-primitivism/

http://betterecology.wordpress.com/2011/12/24/critique-of-derrick-jensens-work/

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/various-authors-articles-on-animal-and-earth-liberation-struggles-from-green-anarchist

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/brian-a-dominick-animal-liberation-and-social-revolution.pdf

http://richardjwhite.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/call-for-papers-anarchism-and-other-animals-panel-at-the-2nd-anarchist-studies-network-conference-making-connections-loughborough-university-3rd-5th-september-201/

http://thetalonconspiracy.com/tag/john-zerzan/

On and on and on.





Organize the field oxen! You should start a union for plow horses.
[QUOTE=Virgin Molotov Cocktail;2613944]
Sure, a university research lab may not be the most strategic point at which to attack capital, but it's not all that bad either.

Maybe we should start burning large 300 unit apartment buildings down? Sure people have to live in them but think of all the profits landlords are making!




Universities are increasingly sites of intense accumulation and investment, and its testament to their success as a site of capitalist ideological production that a bunch of Marxists will cry foul over something like this.
It's not like they attacked a defense department lab in a university where weapons research is being done. They attacked a medical research lab which was doing research that had the potential to alleviate human suffering. Under capitalism this process will always be tainted with capital/the profit motive. Acting like supporting medical research under capitalism is condoning the capitalist system is foolish.


You know what, though? Every gooddamn capitalist project has a fucking "humanitarian" side. Would you cry foul on striking fast food workers because of the good work McDonalds does for sick children? Of course not.
Comparing medical research to McDonalds. What do you want me to say to that? This sort of lifestylist idealism should have no place in the broader socialist tradition. Medical advances have come under the umbrella of capitalist production/distribution. We can't change the way this is done until capitalism is ended. Even so, in a communist society sane and rational people would continue to support animal testing.

[Ele'ill]

http://caatinfo.org/CAATHOME.htm

no cures, 45 years

Is animal research accurate or useable

http://www.aavs.org/site/c.bkLTKfOSLhK6E/b.6456997/k.3D74/Problems_with_Animal_Research.htm#.UYV7BO_wJhk

alternatives

http://www.shac.net/science/alternatives.html

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

http://caatinfo.org/CAATHOME.htm

no cures, 45 years

I wonder what they mean exactly by "cures".

Just because no cures are found does not mean the research has no merit. Terrible rhetoric displaying a worse understanding of how research works.

[Crixus]

http://caatinfo.org/CAATHOME.htm

no cures, 45 years

It's not just about "cures". How many AIDS patients do you think have had drugs that minimize their suffering, drugs that were tested on monkeys? Do you know anyone with AIDS? I want you to walk up to them and tell them that they shouldn't have those drugs. Tell them that they should test the drugs on themselves no matter the outcome. Do that.

[Ele'ill]

Your neurotic obsession with saving cute bunnies holds no weight with my obsession to minimize human suffering. My personal account, which wasn't very detailed at all, isnt an appeal to emotion. There have been real material gains from animal testing. It would be an appeal to emotion if I said "look at my poor mother, lets burn a cute bunny rabbit and throw it's ashes into the sea in order to save her from this suffering". There would be no logic in that. No material basis. No reality. The reality of what I said is animal trials are necessary to make human trials safe. It's not an appeal to emotion for me to not want to inject my mother with some drug that may kill her instantly.

the links I posted demonstrate that what you're saying here isn't true i think that hardcore leftists like to not read the other side of the discussion because it's more fun to have the imaginary evil army of elven folk that live in trees as a personal punching bag



Organize the field oxen! You should start a union for plow horses.

well someone has to because while these animals can feel a lot of physical pain and emotional distress they are relatively defenseless against us



Maybe we should start burning large 300 unit apartment buildings down? Sure people have to live in them but think of all the profits landlords are making!

this is kind of funny though because apartments are frequently torched as acts against gentrification, usually when they are being built not while there are people inside of them though




It's not like they attacked a defense department lab in a university where weapons research is being done.

not much difference tbh, the way capital edicts industry pharma and their research and their research partners are no different




They attacked a medical research lab which was doing research that had the potential to alleviate human suffering.

not very often


Under capitalism this process will always be tainted with capital/the profit motive. Acting like supporting medical research under capitalism is condoning the capitalist system is foolish.

I think that glorifying pharma is silly.


Even so, in a communist society sane and rational people would continue to support animal testing.

No, wrong. Sane and rational/actual communists would find an alternative and it would be possible in a world free of the constraints of capital.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Is animal research accurate or useable

http://www.aavs.org/site/c.bkLTKfOSLhK6E/b.6456997/k.3D74/Problems_with_Animal_Research.htm#.UYV7BO_wJhk

Yes (http://speakingofresearch.com/facts/the-animal-model/) it is (http://speakingofresearch.com/facts/medical-benefits/). It also has benefits for animals (http://speakingofresearch.com/facts/veterinary-benefits/) too.


alternatives

http://www.shac.net/science/alternatives.html

It's highly disingenuous for animal-rights types to make such a song and dance about how non-human animals are so different from humans and are thus unreliable as test subjects, while at the same time promoting "alternatives" that are even further removed from what humans are; macroscopic multi-cellular mammalian organisms.

[Ele'ill]

I wonder what they mean exactly by "cures".

Just because no cures are found does not mean the research has no merit. Terrible rhetoric displaying a worse understanding of how research works.

or just figure out how to use a webpage there are these things called 'links' that you can click to move around the site from the main index page

[Ele'ill]

It's highly disingenuous for animal-rights types to make such a song and dance about how non-human animals are so different from humans and are thus unreliable as test subjects, while at the same time promoting "alternatives" that are even further removed from what humans are; macroscopic multi-cellular mammalian organisms.

no I just think they're saying that current animal research is unreliable however some other alternatives exist that happen to be more reliable that's not some big 'gotcha' thing lol

[Crixus]

http://caatinfo.org/CAATHOME.htm

no cures, 45 years

Is animal research accurate or useable


The specific monkey in that picture, the ones being used for testing, is the Rhesus macaque monkey.

http://www.avert.org/hiv-animal-testing.htm



While all drugs and vaccines have to be tested on animals to establish their safety, testing them to establish their effectiveness is a different matter.
HIV is a retrovirus specific to humans (hence the name ‘Human Immunodeficiency Virus’), which means it is not naturally found in any other animal. Some African primates, such as chimpanzees and a few species of monkey, are naturally infected with SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus), which is believed to be the virus from which HIV originated (http://www.avert.org/origin-aids-hiv.htm). Chimpanzees can also be artificially infected with HIV in a laboratory. However most monkeys and chimpanzees have very efficient immune responses to SIV (and HIV), and do not develop AIDS, even after many years of infection. This can make it very difficult to assess whether a drug or vaccine actually works, so primates are not used as widely as human substitutes as they once were.
This said, there is one primate still commonly used to conduct efficacy testing: the Rhesus macaque monkey. Because Rhesus macaques originate from Asia, rather than Africa, they have never been exposed to SIV, and thus have no natural immune responses to it. A Rhesus macaque that is infected with SIV will therefore develop AIDS type illnesses in a relatively short time.
For this reason (and because they are not an endangered species like some other Asian primates), macaques are often used in HIV research. A few HIV drugs, such as AZT and tenofovir, have been tested on macaques for efficacy, though stricter rules on the use of primates in animal testing, and greater knowledge of HIV, mean that more modern antiretrovirals are generally only tested on animals for safety reasons.
Vaccine development on the other hand makes extensive use of primates. Because it could be seen as unethical to give a healthy human a vaccine, and then expose them to HIV to see if the vaccine works (if it doesn’t, they’ll end up with HIV), animals can be used as substitutes to establish whether a vaccine is effective or not. This method can also be used to test the usefulness of current AIDS drugs (such as tenofovir) in preventing HIV infection. Such work of course raises significant questions over whether it is any more ethical to give a monkey HIV than a human, when it too may become sick with AIDS and die

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

or just figure out how to use a webpage there are these things called 'links' that you can click to move around the site from the main index page

This the electronic equivalent of "read book XYZ". It's not a viable substitute for an actual argument. If you already know what they mean precisely by a "cure", why not share the relevant information with the rest of us?

[Lord Hargreaves]

http://www.alzheimer-europe.org/Research/Understanding-dementia-research/Clinical-trials/Phases-of-clinical-trials

I'm going to try to remain civil and say it again. Human trials (clinical trials) can't get approval until the procedures/drugs have been tested on animals. Yes at one point they (mostly the state) tested on people without animal trials first and these conditions were sick. Disgusting. Especially with the profit angle and or military implications. Are animal experiments a pleasant thing? No. But niether is dying of AIDS, Alzheimers, Parkinsons etc. Human suffering trumps animal suffering and if you disagree now you won't when you hold a dying family member in your arms which is going to eventually happen. Maybe you should tell them to just accept it when it does happen? Think of the animals Mom. Ya, that's what I'll tell her. Or maybe we could just 'trust' the drug companies to not inject her with Draino?

My mother has Alzheimer's and I wouldn't want her ingesting every drug some pharmaceutical company is pushing without strict regulations for safety. Part of these regulations for safety is animal trials. What do you not understand about this? I've even read some animal liberation advocates and 'primitivists' say we should all just accept the cards we're dealt. Quite frankly I'd love to see your reaction when your family members start dying of horrible diseases. You'll call this post an 'appeal to emotion' but this is essentially the thought process behind 'saving the chickens'. The sad thing is the left is entwined with this sort of shifty view. Mostly lifestylist anarchists.

You're getting hysterical. I suggest you stop being so moist and try to calm down. I think there was only one sort-of argument in the whole of the above, the rest was just emotional pleading.

Yes, the link explains how EU regulations make animal testing obligatory at the pre-clinical stage, and also mentions the World Medical Authority. I know what the law says. This is nothing but an Argument from Authority fallacy and doesn't deserve my time.

I'm sure your mom is a lovely person and that her suffering is real, but please don't embarrass yourself by bringing her up again. You should think better of yourself and your ability to argue

I can't answer for primitivists who want to abandon science and medicine altogether and return to living in caves (not that I necessarily want to buy into revleft primitivist-as-bogeyman bullshit). That's not my position. Just because I'm sceptical of these practices within the scientific community doesn't mean I'm for "accepting the cards I'm dealt". That this could be seriously assumed by you just goes to show how thorough vivisection propaganda has been.

[Ele'ill]

Yes (http://speakingofresearch.com/facts/the-animal-model/) it is (http://speakingofresearch.com/facts/medical-benefits/). It also has benefits for animals (http://speakingofresearch.com/facts/veterinary-benefits/) too.



Do you want to discuss specific points on those websites? I only linked to web pages to show Crixus that there is actually a discussion and that their 'u want to save bunnies instead of save millions of people's lives' line of argumentation was complete shit.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

no I just think they're saying that current animal research is unreliable however some other alternatives exist that happen to be more reliable that's not some big 'gotcha' thing lol

Name them, then. Go on, I'm happy to wait.

[Ele'ill]

The specific monkey in that picture, the ones being used for testing, is the Rhesus macaque monkey.

http://www.avert.org/hiv-animal-testing.htm


what you posted doesn't state anything about quality of research results


also what is the difference between two animals if they feel the same or similar levels of physical pain, emotional distress, sickness etc..

[Ele'ill]

Name them, then. Go on, I'm happy to wait.


that whole page I linked to showed alternatives that were either in use or being developed

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

that whole page I linked to showed alternatives that were either in use or being developed

You specifically made the claim that "however some other alternatives exist that happen to be more reliable", which I take to mean more reliable than animal testing.

I'd like you to name them, please.

[Crixus]

You're getting hysterical. I suggest you stop being so moist and try to calm down. I think there was only one sort-of argument in the whole of the above, the rest was just emotional pleading.


I'm not pleading or begging or being 'emotional'. The only reason I bring my dying family member into the discussion is to say to you or whoever, your tune would change if confronted with the actual suffering animal testing seeks to alleviate. It's the same reason I told Mariel to walk up to aids patients and tell them that they should test the drugs they're taking on themselves. The illogical or 'hysterical' position here is the position that cute little bunnies trump dying human beings. The actual argument I put forth, besides my personal experience with dealing with Alzheimers, is that animal testing is needed to make sure drugs are safe. If it's an "appeal to emotion" or "being hysterical" to say I don't want to inject my mother with a drug that may kill her instantly then call me hysterical- I would think I'm being rather level headed. Especially in the face of these sorts of personal insults.

And no, of course not all people against animal testing are anarcho primitivists. Never said that.

[Ele'ill]

You specifically made the claim that "however some other alternatives exist that happen to be more reliable", which I take to mean more reliable than animal testing.

I'd like you to name them, please.


according to that site and a lot of the sites it links to they were reliable alternatives since even some of the pro animal testing sites note the barriers of animal testing. This is a pretty cool site, it has some talking points on it http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-testing-without-torture.aspx

honestly I'm for human progression past torturing animals. I believe in science and I believe we can find working alternatives.


How about we talk about this first

what is the difference between two animals if they feel the same or similar levels of physical pain, emotional distress, sickness etc..

[Lord Hargreaves]

It's not like they attacked a defense department lab in a university where weapons research is being done. They attacked a medical research lab which was doing research that had the potential to alleviate human suffering. Under capitalism this process will always be tainted with capital/the profit motive. Acting like supporting medical research under capitalism is condoning the capitalist system is foolish.

Surely a meaningful distinction can be made though?

For instance, it would be completely false to say: "Since the university is a critical component of the social reproduction of capitalism, higher education is of no value!" It fact this would be a moronic thing to say.

But that isn't the same as giving the university carte blanche; it isn't the same as just taking it at its Word when it says that its research is for humanitarian reasons. (Just as people can see through the bullshit justifications for military research, that it betters our understanding of all technology and could lead to advances in other areas, etc.)

It still remains that the modern university is a capitalist institution, and that this leads it to do things which need to be mercilessly and relentlessly denounced.


Comparing medical research to McDonalds. What do you want me to say to that? This sort of lifestylist idealism should have no place in the broader socialist tradition. Medical advances have come under the umbrella of capitalist production/distribution. We can't change the way this is done until capitalism is ended. Even so, in a communist society sane and rational people would continue to support animal testing.

McDonalds still serves a social need: feeding hungry people. Just as gigantic, transnational, richer-than-some-countries oil companies are fulfilling an essential social need: providing energy. It is probably rare to find a truly appalling and vile practice that isn't at the same time providing some vital function. Such is the nature of capitalism. The point is simply that none of this counts as an excuse, and we need to push beyond this as a system.

Also, don't you think calling this "lifestylism" is something of a misnomer? These people are prepared to spend life in jail for what they do (if they're caught that is!) Not much of a "lifestyle choice". I don't see how one could criticise animal libs for lifestylism, when they are clearly more radical than most of the traditionalist socialists who organise today.

[Ele'ill]

lso, don't you think calling this "lifestylism" is something of a misnomer? These people are prepared to spend life in jail for what they do (if they're caught that is!) Not much of a "lifestyle choice". I don't see how one could criticise animal libs for lifestylism, when they are clearly more radical than most of the traditionalist socialists who organise today.

and also fuck 'broader socialist tradition' whatever the fuck that means talk about lifestylism :rolleyes:

[Crixus]

It still remains that the modern university is a capitalist institution, and that this leads it to do things which need to be mercilessly and relentlessly denounced.

I'm not going to mercilessly and relentlessly denounce animal testing because it's being done under the umbrella of capitalism. Nor are most animal liberation activists/supporters. It's a moral stance based in equating animal suffering with human suffering. Animal testing could be done in some imaginary advanced communist society and the same people would oppose it. Trying to wrap the blanket of anti-capitalism around the issue of animal testing is beyond disingenuous (in the same manner as you trying to paint me out as being 'hysterical'). The same opposition would exist in an advanced communist society.



McDonalds still serves a social need: feeding hungry people.

The world would exist just fine without McDonalds. No one would suffer if McDonalds didn't exist, if it never existed. If animal testing never existed or if people like you succeeded in ending it people would suffer. There's no comparison.




Just as gigantic, transnational, richer-than-some-countries oil companies are fulfilling an essential social need: providing energy. It is probably rare to find a truly appalling and vile practice that isn't at the same time providing some vital function. Such is the nature of capitalism. The point is simply that none of this counts as an excuse, and we need to push beyond this as a system.

In an advanced communist society would you support animal testing?



Also, don't you think calling this "lifestylism" is something of a misnomer? These people are prepared to spend life in jail for what they do (if they're caught that is!) Not much of a "lifestyle choice". I don't see how one could criticise animal libs for lifestylism, when they are clearly more radical than most of the traditionalist socialists who organise today.

How many animal liberation activists are doing life in prison? Even so, just because they'd be willing to do so doesn't legitimize their cause. A suicide bomber is willing to take his/her own life. Does this legitimize their cause? I call it lifestylism in so far as , watch out Mariel, I'm gonna say it, within the broader socialist tradition most animal liberation folks are of the green anarchist vegan stripe. The same sort of lifestylists who will assault people for opposing veganism, who will place animal liberation above human suffering, who will embrace all manner of idealist notions of interspecies equality. Lets take a look at one who is in prison, Walter Bond. I can make an entire thread ripping apart his ideals. I don't support Walter Bond. No.

[Lord Hargreaves]

I'm not going to mercilessly and relentlessly denounce animal testing because it's being done under the umbrella of capitalism. Nor are most animal liberation activists/supporters. It's a moral stance based in equating animal suffering with human suffering. Animal testing could be done in some imaginary advanced communist society and the same people would oppose it. Trying to wrap the blanket of anti-capitalism around the issue of animal testing is beyond disingenuous (in the same manner as you trying to paint me out as being 'hysterical'). The same opposition would exist in an advanced communist society.

Sure, anti-capitalism and anti-vivisection aren't the same thing, but they are connected. I believe that in a communist society medicine wouldn't be an elite profession that hands down ready made cures-as-commodities, but something that involves patients at all stages. It would be holistic, communal, and as democratic as possible.

Also if there is no profit motive, that suggests to me that society would be far more "rational" and more efficiently geared at making people better and improving their lives (it would realise that the science supporting the need for animal testing is unconvincing). It isn't necessarily the case that the two will go together, but then neither is it necessarily the case that communism will bring an end to sexism, racism, etc.



In an advanced communist society would you support animal testing?

No. See above.



How many animal liberation activists are doing life in prison? Even so, just because they'd be willing to do so doesn't legitimize their cause. A suicide bomber is willing to take his/her own life. Does this legitimize their cause? I call it lifestylism in so far as , watch out Mariel, I'm gonna say it, within the broader socialist tradition most animal liberation folks are of the green anarchist vegan stripe. The same sort of lifestylists who will assault people for opposing veganism, who will place animal liberation above human suffering, who will embrace all manner of idealist notions of interspecies equality. Lets take a look at one who is in prison, Walter Bond. I can make an entire thread ripping apart his ideals. I don't support Walter Bond. No.

Now you're trying to dismiss anyone of "green anarchist vegan stripe" as a "lifestylist". In which case lifestylism is no longer a criticism of people who aren't interested in organising politically, and/or are apolitical outside of their own chosen way of living, and is reduced to meaning "someone I disagree with"

[Crixus]

Sure, anti-capitalism and anti-vivisection aren't the same thing, but they are connected. I believe that in a communist society medicine wouldn't be an elite profession that hands down ready made cures-as-commodities, but something that involves patients at all stages. It would be holistic, communal, and as democratic as possible.

No they're not the same thing and unless, in an advanced communist society, people were expected to test the drugs on themselves animal testing would take place. You people, as you are now, would be in the minority and the democratic process wouldnt favor you as public opinion doesn't now which is why activists are so hysterical as to run livestock truck drivers off the road, so hysterical as to burn down factories and research labs. So hysterical that they've branded researchers child molesters by passing out fliers in researchers neighborhoods stating such. So hysterical that they compare meat factory workers to NAZI death camp soldiers. I want nothing to do with that sort of emotional idealist hysteria. Much of the same authoritarian and undemocratic tactics would probably take place in an advanced communist society in order to force views on people.


Also if there is no profit motive, that suggests to me that society would be far more "rational" and more efficiently geared at making people better and improving their lives (it would realise that the science supporting the need for animal testing is unconvincing).


It's not unconvincing. It's unconvincing to people who place animal suffering on the same level as human suffering. It's not the profit motive behind animal testing. If medical/drug companies could skip animal testing and simply push their product's on people it would be more profitable. These are the sort of regulations "free market" capitalists attack. Maybe you should join them in their cause to deregulate everything? You have a less than sophomoric understanding of the medical system. Something you've already admitted in this thread. And you accuse me of basing my arguments on emotion? It's a material fact animal testing has helped to minimize human suffering and has also made drugs safer. Your idealism is showing. Quick, hide it behind more empty verbiage.




It isn't necessarily the case that the two will go together, but then neither is it necessarily the case that communism will bring an end to sexism, racism, etc.[QUOTE]

Equating animal testing to sexism and racism is absurd. Yes the worker at the chicken factory is the NAZI at the death camp! That sort of twisted view excuses animal activists from trying to run truck drivers off the road. Hayley Kent comes to mind. Any socialist who compares animal testing to slavery, to rape, to teh systematic subjugation and murder of human beings can go ahead and sit in the back of the class. You're not my comrades.







[QUOTE=Lord Hargreaves;2614309]
Now you're trying to dismiss anyone of "green anarchist vegan stripe" as a "lifestylist". In which case lifestylism is no longer a criticism of people who aren't interested in organising politically, and/or are apolitical outside of their own chosen way of living, and is reduced to meaning "someone I disagree with"

No, it's obvious this sort of nonsense is knee deep in lifestylism:

http://profanexistence.com/2013/02/16/total-liberation-an-interview-with-walter-bond-on-anarchy-abortion-rights-animal-liberation/

[Ele'ill]

No they're not the same thing and unless, in an advanced communist society, people were expected to test the drugs on themselves animal testing would take place.

But the animals in the tests suffer the same and similar emotional distress and physical pain that humans would. What is your reason to not test on humans.






You people, as you are now, would be in the minority and the democratic process wouldnt favor you as public opinion doesn't now which is why activists are so hysterical as to run livestock truck drivers off the road, so hysterical as to burn down factories and research labs.


oh yeah cuz people are just jumping to revolt against capitalism by the standards set by the broader socialist tradition now. :rolleyes:

What was done here wasn't activism it was direct action. I can state this without stating my opinion on how successful I think some of these actions are. There is always a trend in these discussions where the anti animal liberation folks distort things in every sentence they post while the animal liberation folks tend to stay quite a bit more grounded in reality.




So hysterical that they've branded researchers child molesters by passing out fliers in researchers neighborhoods stating such. So hysterical that they compare meat factory workers to NAZI death camp soldiers. I want nothing to do with that sort of emotional idealist hysteria. Much of the same authoritarian and undemocratic tactics would probably take place in an advanced communist society in order to force views on people.

I think what you're doing here though is melting various currents together to pick the bad from the one and apply it to the other one because of course that is convenient. I don't know exactly what you mean by undemocratic tactics as if every group of folks that want to act are supposed to get your permission to do so and use tactics that you approve of. And to comment on your previous point about popular opinion if we relied on popular opinion nothing would get done but mass society would certainly continue.




It's not unconvincing. It's unconvincing to people who place animal suffering on the same level as human suffering.

Why are they different?



It's not the profit motive behind animal testing. If medical/drug companies could skip animal testing and simply push their product's on people it would be more profitable.

Instead of researching and using alternative research methods they use animals. Pharma and their research groups are the same as any other industry. It is entirely about profits.



These are the sort of regulations "free market" capitalists attack. Maybe you should join them in their cause to deregulate everything? You have a less than sophomoric understanding of the medical system. Something you've already admitted in this thread. And you accuse me of basing my arguments on emotion? It's a material fact animal testing has helped to minimize human suffering and has also made drugs safer. Your idealism is showing. Quick, hide it behind more empty verbiage.

I don't think anyone is suggesting abolish medical industry now and rebuild it from scratch. I think we're pointing out glaringly obvious faults in the pro animal testing positions and in pharma/medical/research industries all around.





You're not my comrades.

*yawn*

[Fourth Internationalist]

If medical/drug companies could skip animal testing and simply push their product's on people it would be more profitable.

Actually, many companies have used the inaccurate results from animal testing to get their products considered safe. A good book that I've read talks about this a lot and animal testing in general. "Lethal laws : animal testing, human health, and environmental policy / Alix Fano." In fact, tobacco companies did this for many years to promote their own product. By doing this animal testing, they are actually helping their profits.

[Crixus]

Actually, many companies have used the inaccurate results from animal testing to get their products considered safe. A good book that I've read talks about this a lot and animal testing in general. "Lethal laws : animal testing, human health, and environmental policy / Alix Fano." In fact, tobacco companies did this for many years to promote their own product. By doing this animal testing, they are actually helping their profits.

I don't doubt capitalists will abuse the regulatory system in any way they can. I'm sure they've done the same with computer models, lab produced cell research and so on. This isn't an argument against animal testing to determine the safety and effectiveness of medication though. I would suggest animal lib people, and this isnt some sort of joke or attack, organize within their ranks and the community to get human volunteers to test medication BUT many times the test subjects must be suffering from the target disease/dysfunction/disability etc. My post earlier on aids research was completely ignored, the one in reply to Mariels post about the monkeys. Testing HIV drugs on people who have HIV or AIDS is like playing Russian roulette with the lives of the patients. Most patients won't be willing to be test subjects until they're on deaths door. These monkeys allow scientists to test the drugs on working immune systems and this has indeed extended lives and minimized suffering of aids patients but you see the philosophy behind animal lib's theories is that animals and humans are equal and to kill monkeys to save humans is like killing humans to save humans. They compare it to, lets say, if America went to Japan and kidnapped ten thousand Japanese to experiment on because we saw the Japanese as 'less than' human. This is the fundamental fork in the road, if you will. This is why the two sides will never come to agreement. I place human welfare above animal welfare.

[Ele'ill]

This is why the two sides will never come to agreement. I place human welfare above animal welfare.

I don't necessarily agree with this or anything that you've said really but why do you place human welfare above animal welfare if the suffering is the same?

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-testing-without-torture.aspx

http://www.vivisectioninformation.com/index.php?p=1_24_aids-hiv

Interesting to note from those sites it looks like science is trying to and succeeding in finding alternatives to animal testing (including the HIV studies) which is why I originally stated that once things are freed up and not reliant on funds or profit we will probably see huge leaps in a lot of areas. I would expect medicine and the research around it to be a big one and I don't think that animal testing will be around after 'the' revolution. Also, just because animal research has yielded some results it doesn't mean it was the quickest, safest, or most accurate manner to do so.

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-bad-science.aspx


Animal liberation is usually about total liberation but I'd imagine there are some folks out there who feel animal testing in some cases in the future might be necessary but all other animal industry should be abolished. Or some combination. I am for total liberation.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I don't doubt capitalists will abuse the regulatory system in any way they can. I'm sure they've done the same with computer models, lab produced cell research and so on. This isn't an argument against animal testing to determine the safety and effectiveness of medication though.

While I don't believe animal testing is completely inaccurate, there are many many cases where it is very inaccurate. Those instances showed that animal testing did not work in many many cases, and companies used that fact to make more profit.


My post earlier on aids research was completely ignored, the one in reply to Mariels post about the monkeys. Testing HIV drugs on people who have HIV or AIDS is like playing Russian roulette with the lives of the patients. Most patients won't be willing to be test subjects until they're on deaths door. These monkeys allow scientists to test the drugs on working immune systems and this has indeed extended lives and minimized suffering of aids patients Animal testing for a cure for HIV/AIDS is filled with a number of problems, the most significant being that non-humans don't get AIDS from the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. While obviously biased, I think this (http://www.vivisectioninformation.com/index.php?p=1_24_AIDS-HIV) and this (http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/aids-contagion-and-confusion.aspx) are quite interesting. Also, for fairness, this (http://www.animalresearch.info/en/listing/1/aids-hiv/) is also interesting for anyone who is also interested. (obviously, all of these are clearly biased so just keep that in mind).


but you see the philosophy behind animal lib's theories is that animals and humans are equal and to kill monkeys to save humans is like killing humans to save humans. They compare it to, lets say, if America went to Japan and kidnapped ten thousand Japanese to experiment on because we saw the Japanese as 'less than' human. This is the fundamental fork in the road, if you will. This is why the two sides will never come to agreement. I place human welfare above animal welfare.Most animal rights advocates actually do put humans above other animals. If you argue against us by saying that, we can't take you seriously. However, whatever your stance on animal rights is, humans and other animals are all capable of pain and suffering.

EDIT: Mari3L also links to one of the sites I have linked to also.

[Crixus]

I don't necessarily agree with this or anything that you've said really but why do you place human welfare above animal welfare if the suffering is the same?

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-testing-without-torture.aspx

http://www.vivisectioninformation.com/index.php?p=1_24_aids-hiv

Interesting to note from those sites it looks like science is trying to and succeeding in finding alternatives to animal testing (including the HIV studies) which is why I originally stated that once things are freed up and not reliant on funds or profit we will probably see huge leaps in a lot of areas. I would expect medicine and the research around it to be a big one and I don't think that animal testing will be around after 'the' revolution. Also, just because animal research has yielded some results it doesn't mean it was the quickest, safest, or most accurate manner to do so.

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-bad-science.aspx


Animal liberation is usually about total liberation but I'd imagine there are some folks out there who feel animal testing in some cases in the future might be necessary but all other animal industry should be abolished. Or some combination. I am for total liberation.

From the PETA article


animal studies have produced no real results in terms of preventing or treating AIDS This is 100% false propaganda and of course prevention of contacting hiv/aids should be part of battling the hiv/aids epidemic.

http://journals.lww.com/jaids/Abstract/2004/02010/Use_of_Antiretroviral_Drugs_to_Prevent_HIV_1.13.as px

http://www.animalresearch.info/en/medical-advances/160/azt-the-first-drug-treatment-for-hiv/

From the other article


A human virus causing human deaths. Animal experiments have proved a waste.


Another lie.

http://www.animalresearch.info/en/medical-advances/28/hiv-aids-prophylaxis/

http://www.animalresearch.info/en/listing/1/aids-hiv/#way

[Fourth Internationalist]

I'd just like to say, using info from PETA is obviously biased against animal testing. On the other hand, a website called 'Animal Research' is also obviously biased for animal testing. Just keep that in mind. :)

[Crixus]

I'd just like to say, using info from PETA is obviously biased against animal testing. On the other hand, a website called 'Animal Research' is also obviously biased for animal testing. Just keep that in mind. :)
One is using the scientific method, the other is using idealist emotion and some failed studies to use 'science' to come to a per-determined ideological/moral conclusion (like when creationists try to use the bacterial flagellum to prove god exists). Ya got it. I'll stick with science thank you. When these people start screaming "no cure!" they expose their ignorance concerning the scientific method and again it is indeed all based in 'animals are no different than humans' moralization. Read the links and articles I posted before you go on further down the path of idealism. To say there has been and will be no benefit from animal testing is idealism of the most crude nature and yes some researchers are animal rights advocates first which will lead to all manner of subjective use of data - even some aids patients are PETA members and are against animal testing. So what. Maybe their emotions should dictate the course science takes? No thanks. The majority scientific consensus is, sorry to tell you, animal research has benefits. This has nothing to do with profit. Of course hopefully soon animal testing won't be necessary but we're not there yet. Pushing for new procedures, new technology and when possible more human subjects should be the goal of animal rights advocates not pathetic moralizing. Meanwhile, I'm going to go eat a hamburger as my patience with this nonsense has worn thin.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

One is using the scientific method, the other is using idealist emotion and some failed studies to use 'science' to come to a per-determined ideological/moral conclusion. Ya got it. I'll stick with science thank you. When these people start screaming "no cure!" they expose their ignorance concerning the scientific method and again it is indeed all based in 'animals are no different than humans' moralization.

I don't think you know how "science" works irl.

[Fourth Internationalist]

One is using the scientific method, the other is using idealist emotion and some failed studies to use 'science' to come to a per-determined ideological/moral conclusion. Ya got it. I'll stick with science thank you. When these people start screaming "no cure!" they expose their ignorance concerning the scientific method and again it is indeed all based in 'animals are no different than humans' moralization.

No, you obviously didn't read the PETA article (or at least understand it). Is it really that crazy to think a website called animalresearch is very likely biased? No. But since you think it is, PETA's article is also unbiased if you use that logic.

EDIT: These are the types of responses every time I try to be moderate in the animal testing debate. Always whining and closed mindedness from the pro-animal testing people, but never from anti-animal testing people. Weird...

[Crixus]

No, you obviously didn't read the PETA article (or at least understand it). Is it really that crazy to think a website called animalresearch is very likely biased? No. But since you think it is, PETA's article is also unbiased if you use that logic.

EDIT: These are the types of responses every time I try to be moderate in the animal testing debate. Always whining and closed mindedness from the pro-animal testing people, but never from anti-animal testing people. Weird...
Animalreaserch.info has a political, finacial or moral motivation outside of interest in science is what you're implying. It's an absurd accusation. What do you think it is? A front group for some animal hating profit based capitalist organization? Listen to what you're saying. It's anything but 'moderate'. It's a informational website set up with facts that obliterate idealistic moralizing.

[Crixus]

I don't think you know how "science" works irl.

Nice baseless statement- it mirrors the propaganda that animal testing has not and will not ever have any benefit to humans. I would think it's you who's ignorant yes?

[Althusser]

True. It makes me cringe when I here a so called "leftist" (any person for that matter) advocate Capital punishment

What is wrong with capital punishment when there is a revolutionary government? What do we do with nazis and scum like that?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Animalreaserch.info has a political, finacial or moral motivation outside of interest in science is what you're implying. It's an absurd accusation. What do you think it is? A front group for some animal hating profit based capitalist organization? Listen to what you're saying. It's anything but 'moderate'. It's a informational website set up with facts that obliterate idealistic moralizing.

No I am not implying that. Do not say I'm doing something that I'm not. I know what I am doing and what my own thoughts are. You are not me, so you should not assume you magically can tell if I'm implying and thinking that they're some sort of evil animal hating website.

[Ele'ill]

one is biased in favor of capital and the status quo and believes in entitlement to all kinds of terrible things as most 'heads of', mouth pieces or advocates of capitalist industry are and the other is aware of this and opposed to the emotional and physical results of it in humans and other animals

I used links from peta because despite how much I don't like peta and how much so many other people here absolutely hate peta it was the first search result that came up and I found it kind of ironic and rage inducing that peta could trump the pro animal testing arguments (which they did, with footnotes and links, in great detail)

[Fourth Internationalist]

What is wrong with capital punishment when there is a revolutionary government? What do we do with nazis and scum like that?

Let them spew their nonsense. Democracy, thus also freedom of speech, is for all people. If they get violent, put them in jail. Death for those who simply think differently from the government is what leads to bureaucratic dictatorships like in Nazi Germany, the USSR, and North Korea.

[Ele'ill]

oh and the 'humans are no different than animals argument' is something that I've asked three times now in this thread and nobody from your side of the discussion seems to want to go anywhere near it go figure

[Crixus]

one is biased in favor of capital

How so? How are scientists who prove the benefit of animal testing biased in favor of capital?




one is biased in favor of the status quo and believes in entitlement to all kinds of terrible things as most 'heads of', mouth pieces or advocates of capitalist industry are

Science has nothing to do with fear of change and everything to do with research and results. You know, the scientific method. Research, hypothesis, experiments etc. Acting as if animal testing is a direct result of capitalists pulling the strings is absurd. It's idealistic analysis with no basis in reality. Do me a favor, before you continue with this line of thought, PROVE animal testing is some profit based capitalist conspiracy.





and the other is aware of this and opposed to the emotional and physical results of it in humans and other animals
Yes I know, you're concerned with the emotions and physical well being of animals and find animal testing to be emotionally disturbing which is the base of all your arguments. Arguments such as "animal testing has no benefit for humans". I've shown that to be false so perhaps you should drop the 'scientific' attack on animal testing and stick with your purely idealistic/moralistic approach.

[Crixus]

No I am not implying that. Do not say I'm doing something that I'm not. I know what I am doing and what my own thoughts are. You are not me, so you should not assume you magically can tell if I'm implying and thinking that they're some sort of evil animal hating website.
How are they bias then? What is the source of their bias? Explain in detail.

[Crixus]

oh and the 'humans are no different than animals argument' is something that I've asked three times now in this thread and nobody from your side of the discussion seems to want to go anywhere near it go figure


Hierarchy of intelligence/consciousnesses. Because a chicken is nowhere near at the level of consciousness a human being is at. Primates are closer which makes testing on them all the more sad, I know, it's sad isn't it? But some of us, be it warranted or not in your moralistic view, place the human condition above all else. Most of the people on this site and the world do as well. Which I tried to point out to you in the "what are you eating thread". I kill spiders in my house because they can bite me. I do the same with mosquito's. I don't eat primates, dolphins, elephants, dogs or pork because they're more intelligent. I eat cows and chickens because they're not so intelligent. I spray ants with spray when millions of them raid my apartment because fuck ants. I kill roaches because fuck roaches. Where does your moralizing end? All of us living in grass huts eating grass, berries and fruit or toiling in fields growing veggies without the help of animals or industry. Industry destroys animal habitat. That has to go. Human population has to be curbed. Well Zerzan, I eat meat, support industrial society and think animal testing, right now, is an integral part of medical science.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1945000/images/_1949073_mouse_ear300.jpg

Can you hear me?
http://www.animalresearch.info/en/listing/13/drugs-to-control-transplant-rejection/
(http://www.animalresearch.info/en/listing/13/drugs-to-control-transplant-rejection/)

http://www.newsy.com/videos/doctors-regrow-woman-s-ear-in-her-forearm/

[Fourth Internationalist]

Hierarchy of intelligence/consciousnesses. Because a chicken is nowhere near at the level of consciousness a human being is at. Primates are closer which makes testing on them all the more sad, I know, it's sad isn't it? But some of us, be it warranted or not in your moralistic view, place the human condition above all else. Most of the people on this site and the world do as well. Which I tried to point out to you in the "what are you eating thread". I kill spiders in my house because they can bite me. I do the same with mosquito's. I don't eat primates, dolphins, elephants, dogs or pork because they're more intelligent. I eat cows and chickens because they're not so intelligent. I spray ants with spray when millions of them raid my apartment because fuck ants. I kill roaches because fuck roaches. Where does your moralizing end? All of us living in grass huts eating grass, berries and fruit or toiling in fields growing veggies without the help of animals or industry. Industry destroys animal habitat. That has to go. Human population has to be curbed. Well Zerzan, I eat meat, support industrial society and think animal testing, right now, is an integral part of medical science.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1945000/images/_1949073_mouse_ear300.jpg

Can you hear me?
http://www.animalresearch.info/en/listing/13/drugs-to-control-transplant-rejection/
(http://www.animalresearch.info/en/listing/13/drugs-to-control-transplant-rejection/)

http://www.newsy.com/videos/doctors-regrow-woman-s-ear-in-her-forearm/


I'll have a longer response tomorrow since I'm on my phone but you seriously sound like the YouTuber ThatGuyFromAustria (check his videos out if you want to lose all faith in humanity).

[Fourth Internationalist]

How are they bias then? What is the source of their bias? Explain in detail.

It's a website designed and named to specifically defend animal testing. PETA is the same but instead designed to attack animal testing. No, I do not know what the source of their bias is. Just as you were not me, I am not them, thus I don't know their personal thoughts.

[Crixus]

If I want to lose faith in humanity all I have to do is read this thread. I'm not condoning animal studies for cosmetics, household products, car accidents etc. This is medical science we're talking about. I take it personal and have lost patience with the sort of idealist moralizing quackery I see in this thread because A. I was under the impression communists are materialists and B. I'm dealing with a family member with Alzheimer's which is emotionally draining so of course I'm going to be an asshole sooner or later. This isnt just some debate about whether or not Kautsky was a renegade or if Stalin was satan this sort of thing has an immediate impact on the health and well being of people I love. No no and no this does not mean I'm basing my arguments on emotion. Yes this does mean I'm going to eventually get tiered of idealistic moralizing and will be a dick.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130115143852.htm

Bring on the mice and fuck you if you don't like it. As a matter of fact any ALF member living in my area brags to me about burning down an Alzheimer's research lab I'll interpret that as a direct attack on my families well being. Which, to be honest, is what it is. There's NO material basis for this attack ether. It's vegan idealist moralizing all centered on the theory that animals are equal to humans. Fuck that. Fuck you.

[Crixus]

It's a website designed and named to specifically defend animal testing. PETA is the same but instead designed to attack animal testing. No, I do not know what the source of their bias is. Just as you were not me, I am not them, thus I don't know their personal thoughts.
PETA atatcks animal testing based in emotion and skewed subjective and or cherry picked data. The website I posted is actual scientists defending animal testing in the name of science. What sort of agenda do the scientists have? What "bias"? The "bias" to be evil and torture animals? Just go away.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Ahh yes. Make up what my views are and say "Fuck you."

Grow up. :lol:

[Fourth Internationalist]

PETA atatcks animal testing based in emotion and skewed subjective and or cherry picked data. The website I posted is actual scientists defending animal testing in the name of science. What sort of agenda do the scientists have? What "bias"? The "bias" to be evil and torture animals? Just go away.

As you should have noticed, I too posted a link to that website in one of my posts, before you did, saying it was worth a read. I also said that I don't believe animal testing is always inaccurate. I have nothing against humane and ethical testing. Also, simply claiming "Well that source is biased and bad whereas this source is unbiased" is not an argument.

[Crixus]

Ahh yes. Make up what my views are and say "Fuck you."

Grow up. :lol:
You grow up and think about the human consequences your little idealist moralistic crusade has. I am quite grown up and had to have my mother move into my house due to advancing Alzheimer's. She's sitting in the other room right now quite confused and here I am "debating" whether or not poor little mice and rats should be hurt in an effort to treat her. Yes, fuck you.

[Fourth Internationalist]

You grow up and think about the human consequences your little idealist moralistic crusade has. I am quite grown up and had to have my mother move into my house due to advancing Alzheimer's. She's sitting in the other room right now quite confused and here I am "debating" whether or not poor little mice and rats should be hurt in an effort to treat her. Yes, fuck you.

You really can't read, can you?
Edit: You critizisize PETA for using an emotional argument yet you yourself do so also?

[Crixus]

As you should have noticed, I too posted a link to that website in one of my posts, before you did, saying it was worth a read. I also said that I don't believe animal testing is always inaccurate. I have nothing against humane and ethical testing. Also, simply claiming "Well that source is biased and bad whereas this source is unbiased" is not an argument.
If you don't oppose humane and ethical animal testing what's your point? Yes I am correct to tell you PETA has an agenda and the site I linked to has no agenda other than the advancement of medical science with the goal of alleviating human suffering. What's their "agenda"? Why are they "bias"? There is no bias in science the procedures either advance medical science or they don't. What would be the motivation for them to inject subjective information into the debate? It's like saying a website explaining gravity has bias. When it comes to science it's always the idealists who have bias. People with a cause to defend. The only cause the site I posted to is defending is the advancement of medical science and the minimization of human suffering. What do you not understand about that?

[Crixus]

You really can't read, can you?
Edit: You critizisize PETA for using an emotional argument yet you yourself do so also?
I'm explaining why I'm being condescending and rude. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with the science behind animal testing. I'm not using emotion to attack quackery I'm posting scientific FACT and have begun to be condescending because of the emotional investment I have in the game. The two are separate. Facts have nothing to do with emotion. People ignoring them is bothering me yes. I think you're idiots. I think your idiocy is dangerous and has the potential to affect the well being of people I love. Yes. No argument I put forth is based in emotion what's based in emotion is my willingness to be rude to you not the FACTS themselves. Facts that I had nothing to do with creating. Facts based in science not emotion.

[Fionnagáin]

Pro-tip: writing "fact" as "FACT" makes you look like a dickhead.

[Fourth Internationalist]

If you don't oppose humane and ethical animal testing what's your point? Yes I am correct to tell you PETA has an agenda and the site I linked to has no agenda other than the advancement of medical science with the goal of alleviating human suffering. What's their "agenda"? Why are they "bias"? There is no bias in science the procedures either advance medical science or they don't. What would be the motivation for them to inject subjective information into the debate? It's like saying a website explaining gravity has bias. When it comes to science it's always the idealists who have bias. People with a cause to defend. The only cause the site I posted to is defending is the advancement of medical science and the minimization of human suffering. What do you not understand about that?

I never said PETA did not have agenda. In fact, that was the point of my first bias post.
The websites agenda is to promote and defend animal testing. The problem is that their are many problems and inaccuracies with animal testing, which is a scientific fact. Their purpose is to promote it with little criticism, especially in regards to many ethical and moral problems that do exist and need to be considered. Bias is not just a secret agenda that justifies lies
Pre-existing knowledge, personal experiences, etc. all create biases. It is always necessary to keep that in mind no matter what source for whag subject you look at. Biases exist in everything everywhere. No one is a god with a perfect and unbiased view on anything. Everyone has a bias. It can be good or bad.

[Ele'ill]

How so? How are scientists who prove the benefit of animal testing biased in favor of capital?

Quicker testing methods that aren't accurate but are very expendable/disposable, research that is dually ignorable or acknowledgeable depending entirely on incentive to drive profits or PR, research groups are partners with pharma and other big heads of industry whether it be industrial agriculture, medicine, other medical stuff, natural resources, energy etc.. It isn't any different within the medical field myself and a few other users have made mention of this several times in this thread and linked to examples that linked to other examples literally pages and pages of examples.






Science has nothing to do with fear of change and everything to do with research and results. You know, the scientific method. Research, hypothesis, experiments etc. Acting as if animal testing is a direct result of capitalists pulling the strings is absurd. It's idealistic analysis with no basis in reality. Do me a favor, before you continue with this line of thought, PROVE animal testing is some profit based capitalist conspiracy.

We've already posted handfuls of links I mean not even the human progress technocrats would argue that currently everything revolves around capital and is not in the interest of human progress. The idea that the issue right here in this thread is suddenly conveniently different is a big myth and incredibly silly :rolleyes:






Yes I know, you're concerned with the emotions and physical well being of animals and find animal testing to be emotionally disturbing which is the base of all your arguments. Arguments such as "animal testing has no benefit for humans". I've shown that to be false so perhaps you should drop the 'scientific' attack on animal testing and stick with your purely idealistic/moralistic approach.

Nobody said 'animal testing has no benefit to humans' though although I'm sure you've tried to strawman that at least twice in this thread. :lol:

In fact my reply was, just because animal testing may have led to some results it doesn't mean it is the most accurate or that it is necessary at all because of all the alternatives there are that we've linked to. From a human progress technocratic position I'd have to say that I believe in science and I believe in abolishing capital to further research away from horribly painful and distressing research testing because I believe we are awesome enough to come up with alternatives (and from the links we've posted we can see that it is already in the works)

[Ele'ill]

Hierarchy of intelligence/consciousnesses.

Artificially constructed hierarchy that has nothing to do with anything because you could create this hierarchy within/amongst humans too. Shitty example.



Because a chicken is nowhere near at the level of consciousness a human being is at.but the reason you don't want to test on humans (I'll answer this for you) is because it causes emotional distress and physical pain. also, other animals feel these as well which is why they are used in research because they can display symptoms of pain and distress



Primates are closer which makes testing on them all the more sad, I know, it's sad isn't it? But some of us, be it warranted or not in your moralistic view, place the human condition above all else. Most of the people on this site and the world do as well.I'm dealing with facts though, not morals. I disagree with most of what 'the left' and mass society thinks and honestly I think any genuine commie would be at the least very critical of the status quo, mass society and their mass opinions.






Which I tried to point out to you in the "what are you eating thread". I kill spiders in my house because they can bite me.I let them live because they eat other pests to survive.


I do the same with mosquito's.weird, I don't have mosquitoes in my apartment


I don't eat primates, dolphins, elephants, dogs or pork because they're more intelligent. I eat cows and chickens because they're not so intelligent.As I said earlier, you've created a hierarchy here to justify imprisonment and what's basically torture. Even goldfish are sentient in that they are capable of puffing up to intimidate a larger fish and will back down when they realize they are not as big, but attack if they realize they are larger.


I spray ants with spray when millions of them raid my apartment because fuck ants.A lot of ant species react to poisons and mass killings by splitting their colony which creates bigger problems later on because they keep doing this. The colonies are cooperative too and won't fight but will have independent queens. I don't spray because I share the apartment with a cat and I don't want it to get sick. We usually just keep the apartment clean and the ants don't bother.


I am mildly allergic to bee stings and we have honey bees nesting outside our door. They're pretty chill and fun to watch and nobody has been stung yet. They're much more docile then yellow jackets. There were yellow jackets next door but we let the person who lives there know and they disturbed them early enough that they left and didn't do their thing. I think a lot of good comes from observing the world.




I kill roaches because fuck roaches. Where does your moralizing end?oh the irony in every sentence you post. I don't really kill roaches because the apartment is clean. When I have lived with them I didn't kill them because it does nothing to solve the problem. If a neighbor's apartment is unclean and they feed there they'd rather be there and probably only make an occasional appearance in the other clean apartments. They never bothered me I just made a point to wipe down the kitchen counter/other food areas with some type of disinfectant along with vinegar to take care of any possible poop trails they left.


All of us living in grass huts eating grass, berries and fruit or toiling in fields growing veggies without the help of animals or industry.another strawman I see, no. :rolleyes:




Industry destroys animal habitat. That has to go. This has a lot to do with profit motive. I am extremely critical of industry even after a revolution and you should be too when demand skyrockets if there aren't alternative industries that don't impact the earth the same way they did under capitalism there's going to be worse accidents and more pollution. I think it's possible to pull it off though kind of.



Human population has to be curbed.another strawman because you are mad that you know you are wrong, if you have questions ask them don't post them as if they are quotes from this side of the discussion that's pretty immature. I don't think human population is a problem I think poverty is.

[The Douche]

This is like one of those threads where people accuse others of being primitivists. Has that happened yet?

"I don't want communism if I can't have an iphone and make-up".:(:(:(

[Crixus]

another strawman because you are mad that you know you are wrong, if you have questions ask them don't post them as if they are quotes from this side of the discussion that's pretty immature. I don't think human population is a problem I think poverty is.

My views on eating animals should be separate from animal testing for medical science. I'm not stawmanning you but I was angry yesterday. Not angry because you're right but angry because this debate is personal for me. Your love of lab rats and the love I have for a dying family member are not comparable but in your twisted mind they are. I'm also aware you think my views are twisted and really see no point in continuing a debate with two people who think each others views are twisted. In the battle between the rat and the human the human, in my twisted view, takes priority. You're not going to be able to 'change my mind' on that. It will never happen. I would be more open to a materialist criticism of eating animals- how the earth cannot sustain both global consumption at advanced capitalist societies current rates and meat consumption at the same rates but not from the standpoint that mice are equal to humans.

[Crixus]

This is like one of those threads where people accuse others of being primitivists. Has that happened yet?

"I don't want communism if I can't have an iphone and make-up".:(:(:(
The theory within the more politically active and economically minded Vegan circles concerning population and industrialization is that much of the world is not open to Vegan ideals and many regions are in the process of 'development' which means industrialized animal consumption is going to exponentially increase instead of decrease. Within the "left" this has pushed a lot of animal liberation activists into a more primitivist mindset. Especially the ones in Santa Cruz, Berkeley, Oakland, San Fransisco and the Pacific North West. The ALF and ELF direct action people aren't exactly pro industry. They represent a minority in so far as being willing to do illegal actions but the theory behind those actions are more wide spread.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

according to that site and a lot of the sites it links to they were reliable alternatives since even some of the pro animal testing sites note the barriers of animal testing. This is a pretty cool site, it has some talking points on it http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-testing-without-torture.aspx

I asked you to back up a specific claim with evidence, and you are still not doing so - your link is irrelevant, since I was talking about effectiveness, not anything else. It really shouldn't be hard for you to name at least one technique as I have asked, if you have any familiarity with this issue.


honestly I'm for human progression past torturing animals. I believe in science and I believe we can find working alternatives.

Do you believe in common descent? Because that among other things is the reason behind the effectiveness of animal testing.


How about we talk about this first

what is the difference between two animals if they feel the same or similar levels of physical pain, emotional distress, sickness etc..

Can they, though? I'd consider humans to be capable of a far greater range of emotional distress than even other apes. The greater detail that one can examine the world with, the more that one can come value persons and objects in it on an emotional level. A book can move a human being to tears, but to a chimp it's just a mysterious papery object.

[Crixus]

I never said PETA did not have agenda. In fact, that was the point of my first bias post.
The websites agenda is to promote and defend animal testing. The problem is that their are many problems and inaccuracies with animal testing, which is a scientific fact. Their purpose is to promote it with little criticism

No it's not. They explain why computer models and lab grown tissue etc are not capable of taking the entire pie of lab research- why they can only be a part of the pie at the moment, part of the scientific process. They explain that as soon as technology advances to the point where animal testing is no longer necessary they support the end of animal testing. They also explain the benefits - as there are benefits as even Mareil just admitted BUT (look I used all caps, what a dickhead), what you're not understanding is the argument against animal testing is being put forth with the foundation being that animals are just the same as humans and deserve the same 'rights'. Anyway, you've already said you have no problem with humane animal testing for medical science so at this point whatever sort of issue you have with me is entering the realm of contraian trolling which I'm taking as you purposely being antagonistic. In turn I'll either ignore you or be a total dick in the future as I do not support inhumane animal testing for anything and only support humane animal testing for diseases/disorders/afflictions of the body. I feel humans can be used for cognitive behavioral research. I in no way shape or form support animal testing for consumer products. It's unnessesary.

[pastradamus]

I dont like animal testing. But if we must test animals in order to defeat terrible afflictions and diseases' then so be it. Im an animal lover myself but we just gotta bite the bullet. Many of us would not be here if it weren't for animal testing.

That being said, I don't trust this report. These is no proven link between schizophrenia and Autism, granted they are both Neurological but to equate them both under the banner of the same testing principles almost makes the decision you think they are both the same. I really do not see scientific grounding here and I'll be the first to apologize if im wrong.

[Crixus]

People who value the wellbeing of a couple of mice over the wellbeing of millions of people fucking disgust me - some of the lowest lifeforms on earth.

Animal Rights activists can be understood but these ridiculous shitbags are fucking evil.

Well, what if animal liberation activists managed to get legislation passed that banned animal testing for medical science? Is the act of illegal direct action 'evil' or is it simply a warped point of view?

[Crixus]

Mariel. If a human being was on fire and 100 feet away a rat was on fire and you could only save one which would you choose? The likelihood of you giving a straight up answer is pretty nil. "I'd try to save both" will probably be your reply. Which would you run to first?

[pastradamus]

Mariel. If a human being was on fire and 100 feet away a rat was on fire and you could only save one which would you choose? The likelihood of you giving a straight up answer is pretty nil. "I'd try to save both" will probably be your reply. Which would you run to first?

One will always choose ones own species.

I dunno though, Rats are usually much nicer than people ;-)

[Crixus]

One will always choose ones own species.



Not so fast. If a person is operating from the foundation that animals are no different than humans, as Mariel is doing, a person might run to the rat first. Mariel is essentially running to the rat in her overall position. I choose to run to the human. You do as well. Most people do.

If a person was dying and some wizard appeared and said "kill this rat and the person will live" I would choose to kill the rat. That's essentially what we do when we support animal testing. Animal testing has and does save human lives. To say "no wizard, I will not kill that rat to save that person", to me, is extremely misanthropic.

Fuck, they have me using parables now. If scientific information doesn't work I'll speak the(ir) language of idealism. Mariel, if you were dying and all I had to do was kill a rat to save you I'd kill the rat. I'd kill a thousand rats. A million rats. I would eat rats. I would set rats on fire. Torture rats. Shoot rats to the moon. Throw a rat into a black hole. I'd bite it's head off. You get the point. The rats would die to save you.


On a different note Mariel, would you take medication that would save your life if it had been developed with animal testing? Breast cancer meds? Cervical cancer meds?

[Ele'ill]

My views on eating animals should be separate from animal testing for medical science.

Okay.


I'm not stawmanning you but I was angry yesterday. Not angry because you're right but angry because this debate is personal for me. Your love of lab rats and the love I have for a dying family member are not comparable but in your twisted mind they are.

Well no you did use several strawmen and have been doing so a lot.

Very little animal research is actually useable, what is isn't used because of doubts that it is accurate because of quite a few absolute failures that led to bad things happening to people who were are the receiving end of treatment based on the research (already posted links). Which is why science is moving past animal testing and onto more accurate methods even with capital as a constraint and with new alternatives that may cost more or take longer being a barrier to profit (just as an example). My issue is that capital has been what controls how research gets carried out which led, originally, to animal testing as a method for the reasons already laid out in this thread by myself and several other users (already posted links). Regardless if your loved one's specific treatment was entirely a result of animal testing and animal testing alone and not just 'had animal testing trial attempts but mainly through other research methods', it doesn't mean that the animal testing involved, partial or entire, was the most accurate or safest research method that could have been used.



I'm also aware you think my views are twisted and really see no point in continuing a debate with two people who think each others views are twisted.

yeah but I never said your views are twisted I just think you're wrong



In the battle between the rat and the human the human, in my twisted view, takes priority.

But when I asked you to explain this a little you didn't. You can state this all you want but when two animal suffer the same or similar physical pain and emotional distress why do you pick one over the other


You're not going to be able to 'change my mind' on that. It will never happen. I would be more open to a materialist criticism of eating animals- how the earth cannot sustain both global consumption at advanced capitalist societies current rates and meat consumption at the same rates but not from the standpoint that mice are equal to humans.

artificial hierarchy to justify capital

[Ele'ill]

Mariel. If a human being was on fire and 100 feet away a rat was on fire and you could only save one which would you choose? The likelihood of you giving a straight up answer is pretty nil. "I'd try to save both" will probably be your reply. Which would you run to first?

I see you've answered for me already how convenient. Can you do this all the time but with smart posts thanks


Assuming the human is also 100 feet away which would be an equal distance from one another, my actual reply would be, to make this comparable to what we're talking about in this thread of course, the rat wouldn't be on fire.

[Ele'ill]

I asked you to back up a specific claim with evidence, and you are still not doing so - your link is irrelevant, since I was talking about effectiveness, not anything else. It really shouldn't be hard for you to name at least one technique as I have asked, if you have any familiarity with this issue.

a few of the links we've been posting have been nothing but pages and pages of alternatives that work as well or better than and I find being forced to copy paste from the page into a quote format on here to be waaaaaay too much work when all you have to do is click the link




Do you believe in common descent? Because that among other things is the reason behind the effectiveness of animal testing.

Actually it was theoretically supposed to mean effectiveness but as we can see that wasn't the case with say, primate research/testing. Personally I'm descended from a line of hyena and orcas but that's not really marketable because I am one of what's probably like 4 people ever.




Can they, though? I'd consider humans to be capable of a far greater range of emotional distress than even other apes.

Different people have a 'range' of distress and certain 'breaking points' too though. The spectrum of what is felt is similar, it's pain and distress.



The greater detail that one can examine the world with, the more that one can come value persons and objects in it on an emotional level. A book can move a human being to tears, but to a chimp it's just a mysterious papery object.

but if you drill a hole in their eyes with lasers, expose them to caustic chemicals, expose them to various illnesses, the result will be the same.

To us, swinging from tree to tree or flying way up in the clouds, or swimming deep into the depths of the sea with immense ease and very few consequences is just something we dream about

[Crixus]

I see you've answered for me already how convenient. Can you do this all the time but with smart posts thanks

No I just knew you wouldn't answer the question because it would expose your line of thought and you predictably didnt answer the question.



Assuming the human is also 100 feet away which would be an equal distance from one another, my actual reply would be, to make this comparable to what we're talking about in this thread of course, the rat wouldn't be on fire.

If I ever start a dodge ball team you're the captain.

[Crixus]

And hey, "username". You support animal testing. Go away. You're just looming in here to troll and antagonize.

[Ele'ill]

No I just knew you wouldn't answer the question because it would expose your line of thought and you predictably didnt answer the question.

I answered it so that it was comparable to the thread here. Otherwise it is completely irrelevant. I could have asked more questions like 'how on fire are they' like if a human and rat were equally on fire the rat would instantly be immolated so it's a stupid question to ask. What do I have to put out the fires? etc..

It was a bad comparison for you to make.




If I ever start a dodge ball team you're the captain.

Because I'm hella good at slamming down your questions with good replies that u cannot handle. right? Is that what you mean?

[Fourth Internationalist]

And hey, "username". You support animal testing. Go away. You're just looming in here to troll and antagonize.

No I am not. I just havent had enough time to reply yet since I havent been on RevLeft on my computer yet. Yeah, I may not be 100% against humane and pain free animal testing, but that doesnt mean I'm trolling.

[RadioRaheem84]

Considering the Amanda Knox jab ill take this report with a big dose of scepticism...any one championing her innocence clearly has little connection with truth and facts...

Can we please read more about this? I have yet to hear an argument in favor of Knox's guilt! Please inform me! :confused:

[Crixus]

No I am not. I just havent had enough time to reply yet since I havent been on RevLeft on my computer yet. Yeah, I may not be 100% against humane and pain free animal testing, but that doesnt mean I'm trolling.
Yes you are trolling. Of course I'm aware regulations make it so all drugs need to be tested on animals and that can be fixed as not all drugs need to be tested on animals but there's crucial research where animal testing is necessary and some drugs that must be tested on animals and that's what I'm speaking of. I assume that's the humane animal testing you also support.

PETA members such as Dr Lawrence Hansen (who is an Alzheimers specialist) are being animal liberation activists first and rightly point out that animal testing has not led to a cure for Alzheimers. My family member is now on two differnt drugs that don't permanently stop the progression of the disease but slow it and improve her cognitive ability which is extending her 'window of consciousness'. It's helping her with her speech, her balance and her mood swings. These drugs wouldn't have been possible without animal research and yes Mariel some crappy pharma corporation profits from it.

http://www.alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=433

As far as understanding Alzheimers in general and finding ways to make drugs such as the ones above effective and why we need animal testing to find a cure:

http://kings.networkofcare.org/aging/library/article.aspx?id=1890
(http://kings.networkofcare.org/aging/library/article.aspx?id=1890)

[Ele'ill]

and yes Mariel some crappy pharma corporation profits from it.


you misunderstood my criticism of profit and research


also, once again just for old times sake at this point, just because a drug had some elements of animal testing involved doesn't mean it was the animal testing that pushed it through, that the animal testing was necessary, or that the animal testing was the most accurate method

also, using a personal anecdote (again) as an example is kind of poor quality

[Os Cangaceiros]

If even some animal research gets translated into safer drugs or better treatments, then I'd say it's worth it.

I just really don't feel any compassion for animals, honestly. Like I don't go out of my way to torment them (although my job involves killing fish, which are animals, so I guess I'm culpable in some pretty grievous crimes), but I pretty much agree with this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1970320&postcount=159) post. If I saw a human bleeding on the ground, I would feel compassion, but, say, a deer bleeding out? Despite the fact that intellectually I know that it feels pain, I don't really feel much sympathy or compassion or whatever. Maybe that's messed up but it's the truth.

[Ele'ill]

so I guess I'm culpable in some pretty grievous crimes),

what kind of crime


Maybe that's messed up but it's the truth.

the truth that you're messed up or..?

[Ele'ill]

If even some animal research gets translated into safer drugs or better treatments, then I'd say it's worth it.



yeah but this can be reworded to apply to just about anything from 'jobs being available' to 'dealing with violent folks' or whatever. It's just an apology and not really a critical thought or direction towards a solution

[Crixus]

I answered it so that it was comparable to the thread here. Otherwise it is completely irrelevant. I'm hella good at slamming down your questions with good replies that u cannot handle. right?

No not at all, you didnt answer the question. It's completely relevant which is why you won't answer it. It's an intellectual trap I set for you. If you run to the human you place human life above animals. If you run to the human you support animal testing. I choose to run to the human on fire Mariel. Which do you choose? The human or the rat? You're not going to answer this. I know you wont.

You admit that animal testing has benefits. Your argument is the human suffering is the same as animal suffering so these benefits aren't worth it because lab rats are no different than human beings. You expect me to place a lab rat on the same level with my mother who has Alzheimers. A woman who had a double mastectomy and chemo just three years ago after being diagnosed with stage three cancer. Animal testing was used in chemotherapy. Animal testing was used to create the drugs she took that minimized her production of estrogen (estrogen feeds cancer). These drugs wouldn't have been possible without animal testing.


But don't answer the question because not answering it, by default, I'm going to assume you'd let the human burn.

[Crixus]

If even some animal research gets translated into safer drugs or better treatments, then I'd say it's worth it.

I just really don't feel any compassion for animals, honestly. Like I don't go out of my way to torment them (although my job involves killing fish, which are animals, so I guess I'm culpable in some pretty grievous crimes), but I pretty much agree with this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1970320&postcount=159) post.

Yes. Since, as Mariel says, animals are no different than humans what you do is no different than killing humans. This is how Mariel thinks. This is the foundation of opposing animal testing. Not that it does'nt work, not that it doesnt have any benefits but that it is no different than using humans for testing. That all animals should have the same rights as humans. From that foundation animal liberation activists (some are doctors/researchers, a small minority) attack animal research as having no benefit. When people see animals no different than humans they will lie, distort facts, cherry pick failed studies, propagandize cruel and inhumane animal testing and blow things up to stop animal testing just as we would to stop testing on Jews, or kidnapped children or any humans against their will. They compare it to the holocaust.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

People in this thread thinking a rat is more important the a person? Are you fucking serious?

That's not to say that I don't support ethical treatment of certain animals, but seriously fuck you. A rat isn't worth shit in comparison to a person, especially when it can be tested upon to save lives. Go take your condescending, idiotic animal liberation bullshit back to woodstock, please.

[Quail]

The hypothetical question, "Would you save a human or an animal in extreme and unlikely situation X?" is kind of ridiculous. For starters, people always give such implausible situations that it's impossible to know how one would really react. I am never going to find myself in between a burning human and a burning rat and choose which one to run and save. I imagine I'd do my best to save both, but who knows, maybe I would just panic, freeze up and watch them both die.

I accept that animal testing goes on for medical purposes (as in, I am vegan and know that medication I need will have been tested on animals but I still take that medication), but I don't think it should be necessary. The problem is that it isn't profitable for pharmaceutical companies to research into or use alternatives so I think that capitalism has slowed down and will continue to slow down progress in finding alternatives so I imagine animal testing will go on for a while yet.

I suppose actions like these, if they happened often enough, could drive pharmaceutical companies to fund alternatives to animal testing so they're less likely to be targeted. At least, I'd imagine that is probably the motive rather than liberating the animals.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Wow Crixus. Your entire argument against me has been making up my views, calling me a troll, and making up the views of those who support animal rights. Yeah, but of course I'm the troll. Not you, no, never. *facepalm*

[Fourth Internationalist]

People in this thread thinking a rat is more important the a person? Are you fucking serious?

That's not to say that I don't support ethical treatment of certain animals, but seriously fuck you. A rat isn't worth shit in comparison to a person, especially when it can be tested upon to save lives. Go take your condescending, idiotic animal liberation bullshit back to woodstock, please.

No one here said they believe rats are more important than humans. Though, reading some posts on this thread has made me think most rats are more Iimportant and more intelligent than some people here...

[hatzel]

I suppose actions like these, if they happened often enough, could drive pharmaceutical companies to fund alternatives to animal testing so they're less likely to be targeted. At least, I'd imagine that is probably the motive rather than liberating the animals.

It's actually amazing how many people look at animal liberation activity and say 'what, so you saved a dozen mice, what does that matter?' but they very rarely look at a broken window at Starbucks saying 'what, so you broke one window, what does that matter?' Or whatever else. This strange idea that opening the cages at some animal testing place or a fur farm or even one of those chicken factory places is just about liberating those particular individuals, with absolutely no consideration of anything beyond that, and no systematic analysis, is pretty ridiculous to be perfectly honest...

[Luís Henrique]

Yes. Since, as Mariel says, animals are no different than humans what you do is no different than killing humans. This is how Mariel thinks. This is the foundation of opposing animal testing. Not that it does'nt work, not that it doesnt have any benefits but that it is no different than using humans for testing. That all animals should have the same rights as humans.

Ah, no, you are giving too much credit to animal rightists, I fear.

I am pretty sure that they swap flies all the time, recklessly step over perfectly inoccent ants, and have no troubles with killing insects that plague the plantations needed for their vegetal-only diets.

So, I think their position is that all cute animals should have the same rights as humans.

The icky ones they don't think deserve anything better than quick deaths.

Luís Henrique

[Quail]

Ah, no, you are giving too much credit to animal rightists, I fear.

I am pretty sure that they swap flies all the time, recklessly step over perfectly inoccent ants, and have no troubles with killing insects that plague the plantations needed for their vegetal-only diets.

So, I think their position is that all cute animals should have the same rights as humans.

The icky ones they don't think deserve anything better than quick deaths.

Luís Henrique
Overall, a vegan diet will still do the least harm. Remember that to make animal protein, the animal has to eat something and a lot of energy is wasted at each level of the food chain - so if you eat animal protein, the animal eats more plants than you would if you ate them directly. So eating meat would result in more insects dying as well as the animal that was slaughtered. Besides if the choice is between "starve to death" and "kill some flies," most people would choose "kill some flies" or else we would be putting the lives of flies above the lives of humans. Vegans don't put animals above humans, or at least I don't know any who do.

Anyway, this is a bit off-topic.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Ah, no, you are giving too much credit to animal rightists, I fear.

I am pretty sure that they swap flies all the time, recklessly step over perfectly inoccent ants, and have no troubles with killing insects that plague the plantations needed for their vegetal-only diets.

So, I think their position is that all cute animals should have the same rights as humans.

The icky ones they don't think deserve anything better than quick deaths.

Luís Henrique

Are you kidding me? First of all, it's true that insects will die, but I doubt most people who care about animals go out of their way to kill as many bees and ants as possible.

www.directaction.info/news_july28_12.htm

[hatzel]

www.directaction.info/news_july28_12.htm (http://www.directaction.info/news_july28_12.htm)


The locusts were freed in a park, where they immediately sprang to freedom, leaping for joy on the grass and revelling in the summer sunshine.Some would call this akin to a pathetic fallacy (and might actually stress the word 'pathetic' in its other meaning). Others would call it an anthropocentric silencing of subalternate animal voices, and as such not inherently less oppressive than any other form of hierarchy in which the dominant party claims to speak for those that it stands over like a feudal lord. Problem is that I actually see the validity in both angles but that unfortunately makes me look more than a bit ridiculous, something I myself acknowledge. I guess that's just the cross I have to bear...

[Fourth Internationalist]

Ah, no, you are giving too much credit to animal rightists, I fear.

I am pretty sure that they swap flies all the time, recklessly step over perfectly inoccent ants, and have no troubles with killing insects that plague the plantations needed for their vegetal-only diets.

So, I think their position is that all cute animals should have the same rights as humans.

The icky ones they don't think deserve anything better than quick deaths.

Luís Henrique

"You people arent perfect at ending animal suffering so even reducing animal suffering at all is a stupid idea."

[Luís Henrique]

"You people arent perfect at ending animal suffering so even reducing animal suffering at all is a stupid idea."

No, "reducing animal suffering" isn't a stupid idea (though probably is a misphrased idea).

The kind of theory that is usually associated - "animal rights", "animal liberation", "we are all the same", is bankrupt, and the pseudo-politisation, mimicking the "authoritarian left", is ridiculous, which all leads to mistaken actions, unreasonable speech, miscalculations of all kinds, neglect of basic ecological concerns, etc.

But of course, avoiding causing deliberate harm to animals, when possible, isn't stupid.

Luís Henrique

[Vanguard1917]

Ah, no, you are giving too much credit to animal rightists, I fear.

I am pretty sure that they swap flies all the time, recklessly step over perfectly inoccent ants, and have no troubles with killing insects that plague the plantations needed for their vegetal-only diets.

So, I think their position is that all cute animals should have the same rights as humans.

The icky ones they don't think deserve anything better than quick deaths

Hmm, not always though. Some, like the charming chaps in Earth First!, did quite like insects, especially if they were deadly to humans:

"Ours is an ecological perspective that views Earth as a community and recognizes such apparent enemies as 'disease' (e.g., malaria) and 'pests' (e.g., mosquitoes) not as manifestations of evil to be overcome but rather as vital and necessary components of a complex and vibrant biosphere."

They even had a thing for the not-so-cuddly Aids virus:

"If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human population back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS… the possible benefits of this to the environment are staggering… just as the Plague contributed to the demise of feudalism, AIDS has the potential to end industrialism."

[Ele'ill]

No not at all, you didnt answer the question.


I did answer it wonderfully and you're mad that I did so you're just repeating yourself as if I didn't because of how shocked you are that you have no ground left to stand on. :rolleyes:






It's completely relevant which is why you won't answer it.a relevant example would be, if humans were catching on fire, would you set rats on fire to save the human lives. My response would be, no that makes very little sense, I'd call firefighters or look for a fire extinguisher because it is the logical thing to do at the time. I would then think scientists would study the humans and their tissue to examine how and why the fires were starting, probably using other scientific methods to determine how to stop the problem from occurring in the future. The rats wouldn't be on fire, and just like with actual animal testing, wouldn't yield very many clues since it is happening to humans specifically. :)







It's an intellectual trap I set for you.it was like wet toilet paper honestly



If you run to the human you place human life above animals.or maybe it was just convenience of the situation, like a practical thing to do because..



If you run to the human you support animal testing. I choose to run to the human on fire Mariel. Which do you choose? The human or the rat? You're not going to answer this. I know you wont. 1. a rat being on fire for any amount of time would kill it pretty quickly since it is so small where as a human may still have a chance.

2. We have the capability to immediately treat burns of all degrees immediately when an ambulance shows up it's like a mobile triage and then afterwards in the ER whereas a rat would have to be taken to a specialized animal treatment center and those always seem to be an hour or two away (I've taken animals to emergency animal ER's before trust me on this they are never nearby.)


3. the rat can probably run a lot faster and get away from me and I'd have a better chance catching the person if they were running



You admit that animal testing has benefits. Your argument is the human suffering is the same as animal suffering so these benefits aren't worth it because lab rats are no different than human beings. You expect me to place a lab rat on the same level with my mother who has Alzheimers. A woman who had a double mastectomy and chemo just three years ago after being diagnosed with stage three cancer. Animal testing was used in chemotherapy. Animal testing was used to create the drugs she took that minimized her production of estrogen (estrogen feeds cancer). These drugs wouldn't have been possible without animal testing. Once again, fourth or fifth time now, just because a treatment might have included animal testing in the research it doesn't mean that the research results were used.

Once again, it doesn't mean that the animal testing used was the most accurate or safest method.





But don't answer the question because not answering it, by default, I'm going to assume you'd let the human burn.save the hypothetical rat and invite it to feast on the BBQ flesh of the hypothetical human all hail Gaia

[Lord Hargreaves]

Ah, no, you are giving too much credit to animal rightists, I fear.

I am pretty sure that they swap flies all the time, recklessly step over perfectly inoccent ants, and have no troubles with killing insects that plague the plantations needed for their vegetal-only diets.

If we were talking about human beings, this would be akin to saying: "murder will always exist somewhere in the world, therefore murder is OK, and so I should be free to go out and murder my neighbour or whomever I desire".

Or to put it simply, this is the perfectionist fallacy.


So, I think their position is that all cute animals should have the same rights as humans.

The icky ones they don't think deserve anything better than quick deaths.

Luís Henrique

Actually no you have it completely backwards, since this is the "common sense" view of animals, not those of animal liberationists.

Most people will refuse to eat a dog or a little lamb because it is cute, but will otherwise have no problem with the slaughtering and abuse of other animals which they cannot picture in their heads and cannot sentimentalize. This is the opposite of what we're saying.

[Ele'ill]

People in this thread thinking a rat is more important the a person? Are you fucking serious?

That's not to say that I don't support ethical treatment of certain animals, but seriously fuck you. A rat isn't worth shit in comparison to a person, especially when it can be tested upon to save lives. Go take your condescending, idiotic animal liberation bullshit back to woodstock, please.

This is the most empty boring post of this entire thread

[Ele'ill]

no you have to completely backwards, since this is the "common sense" view of animals, not those of animal liberationists.

Most people will refuse to eat a dog or a little lamb because it is cute, but will otherwise have no problem with the slaughtering and abuse of other animals they cannot picture in their heads and cannot sentimentalize . This is the opposite of what we're saying.


well 'the left' always has been about the broader socialist tradition working within mass society instead of criticizing it so it's no surprise really that certain people overlook these things

[Crixus]

The hypothetical question, "Would you save a human or an animal in extreme and unlikely situation X?" is kind of ridiculous. For starters, people always give such implausible situations that it's impossible to know how one would really react. I am never going to find myself in between a burning human and a burning rat and choose which one to run and save. I imagine I'd do my best to save both, but who knows, maybe I would just panic, freeze up and watch them both die.

Do you or do you not think animals are no different than humans and therefore animal testing is not justified?



I accept that animal testing goes on for medical purposes (as in, I am vegan and know that medication I need will have been tested on animals but I still take that medication), but I don't think it should be necessary. The problem is that it isn't profitable for pharmaceutical companies to research into or use alternatives so I think that capitalism has slowed down and will continue to slow down progress in finding alternatives so I imagine animal testing will go on for a while yet.


http://kings.networkofcare.org/aging/library/article.aspx?id=1890




The need for animal research The need to study the brain itself is a primary reason for using animals in research. Scientists can observe in autopsies of human brains the abnormalities and changes related to Alzheimer’s. But in most cases, an autopsy shows the braining the advanced stages of the disease and provides little information about earlier changes that may have begun years before. In order to understand the disease in progress, researchers often use animals, usually mice, genetically altered to carry a human gene that introduces a particular biological feature of Alzheimer’s. Mice, which reach adulthood in a couple of months, create a kind of fast-track model that enables researchers to study disease progression. By looking at a single factor in isolation, researchers may learn about its particular role in Alzheimer’s or a related disorder. By looking at two or more carefully selected factors, they can observe how multiple factors may influence each other.

http://kings.networkofcare.org/aging/library/article.aspx?id=1890



By: the Alzheimer's Association
Scientists studying Alzheimer’s disease and other disorders that cause dementia use numerous research strategies. Many of these efforts do not require the use of animals. These include large population studies that may reveal risk factors and potential prevention strategies, experiments with cell cultures that provide insight into the activities of disease-related molecules and potential drug compounds, brain images that may show structural and functional changes in the brain, and computer models that simulate the structure and function of proteins and drug compounds. However, because these investigations do not create a complete picture of what happens to the brain in Alzheimer’s disease, there are important studies that depend on the use of animal.


The use of animals is also important in the development of drugs for Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders. Researchers can gather evidence about the probable safety and effectiveness of a compound by testing it in cell cultures and, in some cases, by using computer-modeling techniques. If this early evidence suggests that a compound is toxic and ineffective, then it will not be considered as a potential treatment. However, a compound that may seem like a good candidate in a laboratory dish may function much differently in a complex living being.
Researchers need to answer several questions at this stage in drug development. Does it work? Is it safe? Are there unexpected toxic effects after the drug is broken down in the body? Is enough of the drug absorbed into the blood-stream? Is it still effective if only a little of it is absorbed? Is it still safe if most of it is absorbed? Using humans to answer these questions would be very risky, prohibitively expensive and very time-consuming.
There is, of course, no guarantee that a drug that “passes” all of the tests in animal research will be safe and effective for humans, but these studies narrow the field to a few compounds that may be promising.

2. Background

Drugs (http://www.alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/documents.php?categoryID=200348) and new treatments that many of us take for granted, from antibiotics to blood transfusions and the current drug treatments for Alzheimer's disease (http://www.alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/documents.php?categoryID=200348), would have been impossible to develop without research involving animals.
Many people are concerned about the well-being of animals used in medical research. Alzheimer's Society shares those concerns and strives to ensure that alternatives are used wherever possible.
3. Alzheimer’s Society’s research programme

The majority of Alzheimer's Society's research programme (http://www.alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/documents.php?categoryID=200422) does not involve animals, and they are only used where there is no alternative and fully justified. Currently, maggots, fruit flies, mice and rats are used in research supported by the Society funding programme. The Society does not currently fund any research using primates. The minimum number of animals are used to provide clear data in well-designed experiments and researchers keep to the highest standards of animal welfare. The use of animals has to be justified in every project that proposes to use them, and is subject to robust peer review.
The Society plans its research (http://www.alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/documents.php?categoryID=200422) carefully to ensure that it is relevant, well thought out and avoids duplication. Currently the Society spends £2 million a year on new research. On average a third of this is used on research involving animals. The other two-thirds is spent on a variety of alternative research methods, including test-tube and cell culture experiments, clinical trials, psychosocial research and epidemiological surveys.
However, the Alzheimer's Society and its trustees (http://www.alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=86)believe that funding medical research with animals remains essential if we are ultimately going to understand the causes of dementia and develop effective treatments.

[Crixus]

Wow Crixus. Your entire argument against me has been making up my views, calling me a troll, and making up the views of those who support animal rights. Yeah, but of course I'm the troll. Not you, no, never. *facepalm*
Animal rights and animal liberation are two separate things. I'm not "making up your views" you said you support humane animal testing when it's necessary. That position is no different than my position yet you continue to antagonize me in this thread and on my profile page.

[Crixus]

No one here said they believe rats are more important than humans. Though, reading some posts on this thread has made me think most rats are more Iimportant and more intelligent than some people here...
No, the theory is animals are no different than humans so animal testing is no different than testing on unwilling humans. This is also Mariels position. The rest of your post is simply the sort of antagonizing nonsense I touched on in my prior post.

[Fionnagáin]

Do you or do you not think animals are no different than humans and therefore animal testing is not justified?
You can't jam too assertions together in one question like that. Loads the question in your favour, entirely disingenuous.

[Crixus]

It's actually amazing how many people look at animal liberation activity and say 'what, so you saved a dozen mice, what does that matter?' but they very rarely look at a broken window at Starbucks saying 'what, so you broke one window, what does that matter?' Or whatever else. This strange idea that opening the cages at some animal testing place or a fur farm or even one of those chicken factory places is just about liberating those particular individuals, with absolutely no consideration of anything beyond that, and no systematic analysis, is pretty ridiculous to be perfectly honest...

Whats ridiculous is a bunch of idealists ruining years of research which may have had the potential to create new drugs, treatments and possible cures for a wide variety of diseases/disorders etc. It's also quite authoritarian and anti democratic. They also don't just release animals. They place bombs in peoples cars, threaten researchers lives, flood their homes, pass out leaflets in their neighborhoods accusing them of being child molesters, break into researchers homes with ski masks on threatening entire families, leave fire bombs on people's porches etc. In one case they left a fire bomb on some old ladies porch that wasn't even a researcher. Opps, wrong house? These people aren't my comrades.

The "systematic analysis" is simple. Does medical science animal testing have benefits for humans? Does it minimize suffering and extend lives? The answer is yes.

[Crixus]

You can't jam too assertions together in one question like that. Loads the question in your favour, entirely disingenuous.
No, that question gets to the heart of the matter. It's not a "loaded question". Also, way to ignore the information from Alzheimers researchers which was the bulk of the post you quoted.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I'm not "making up your views" you said you support humane animal testing when it's necessary.

Yes you did. Did you read your owns post?

You grow up and think about the human consequences your little idealist moralistic crusade has. I am quite grown up and had to have my mother move into my house due to advancing Alzheimer's. She's sitting in the other room right now quite confused and here I am "debating" whether or not poor little mice and rats should be hurt in an effort to treat her. Yes, fuck you.
Unless you consider humane testing an idealist moral crusade, then yes, you made up my views.


That position is no different than my position Except you're still made up about animal liberationists believing in primitism, that most would view saving an animal as good as saving a human, and, of course, everything else you've said.



yet you continue to antagonize me in this thread Yes, I dislike liars. Do you think your constant "Fuck yous" and "you're a troll" and "your idealist moralist crusade" and "you don't care about my ill grandma" (paraphrasing) is not antagonizing? I am by far less antagonizing then you, hypocrite.

Also, did you also not, in a reply to me, admit being antagonizing?

I'm explaining why I'm being condescending and rude.


Anyway, you've already said you have no problem with humane animal testing for medical science so at this point whatever sort of issue you have with me is entering the realm of contraian trolling which I'm taking as you purposely being antagonistic. In turn I'll either ignore you or be a total dick in the future

Also, there is a "fuck you" in a post where you made up my views which was addresed is in this reply.

Do you think condescension, rudeness, and calling me a troll is not antagonizing?


and on my profile page.You do remember that you messaged me first and told me to stop posting replies here?


No, the theory is animals are no different than humans so animal testing is no different than testing on unwilling humans. This is also Mariels position. The rest of your post is simply the sort of antagonizing nonsense I touched on in my prior post.

In terms of pain, it is true that they are no different.

[Fourth Internationalist]

If I saw a human bleeding on the ground, I would feel compassion, but, say, a deer bleeding out? Despite the fact that intellectually I know that it feels pain, I don't really feel much sympathy or compassion or whatever. Maybe that's messed up but it's the truth.

Yes, that is messed up. Most people would feel sad and try to stop the pain if possible when seeing anything, be it human or other animal, bleed to death.

[Ele'ill]

Whats ridiculous is a bunch of idealists ruining years of research which may have had the potential to create new drugs, treatments and possible cures for a wide variety of diseases/disorders etc. It's also quite authoritarian and anti democratic. They also don't just release animals. They place bombs in peoples cars, threaten researchers lives, flood their homes, pass out leaflets in their neighborhoods accusing them of being child molesters, break into researchers homes with ski masks on threatening entire families, leave fire bombs on people's porches etc. In one case they left a fire bomb on some old ladies porch that wasn't even a researcher. Opps, wrong house?

We could probably go from tendency to tendency and pick out actions that are controversial within 'radical communities', odd things we as individuals or groups don't understand because it hasn't been explained because of our own lack of participation in reading and attempting to understand. A lot of the 'scare' stories that come out are nothing more than media wash-out dunno why radicals would latch onto it unless they had other motives to do so. Some of the actions are carried about by groups that have politics that make a lot of other radicals uncomfortable (they have shitty politics and two actions to their name and get branded as the banner of social war, another media wash-out effect). etc..





These people aren't my comrades.how narcissistic



The "systematic analysis" is simple. Does medical science animal testing have benefits for humans? Does it minimize suffering and extend lives? The answer is yes.Does testing on unwilling humans offer potential benefits for humans? Does it minimize the suffering and extend lives?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yes, that is messed up. Most people would feel sad and try to stop the pain if possible when seeing anything, be it human or other animal, bleed to death.

I mean, yeah, I'd put it out of it's misery with a bullet to the head, but I wasn't sure if that was the humane solution...

[Crixus]

Yes you did. Did you read your owns post?

Unless you consider humane testing an idealist moral crusade, then yes, you made up my views.

I agree with you. Animal testing should only be done when necessary in a humane fashion. I didn't make up your views.


Except you're still made up about animal liberationists believing in primitism, that most would view saving an animal as good as saving a human, and, of course, everything else you've said.

I never said all animal liberation activists are primitivists. I said in the Bay Area and Pacific north west those animal liberation activists who are also involved in political/economic struggles (socialists) are usually anarchists who are also environmental activists and the root cause of the "animal holocaust" and the "rape" of the earth is industrialization and global development. They rightly understand most peopel on earth arent open to being Vegan and with the further development around the globe the "animal holocaust" is only going to increase so they also oppose development ie industrialization. Of course not all animal liberation activists take this position.



Yes, I dislike liars. Do you think your constant "Fuck yous" and "you're a troll" and "your idealist moralist crusade" and "you don't care about my ill grandma" (paraphrasing) is not antagonizing? I am by far less antagonizing then you, hypocrite. Where have I lied? Quote it. I say fuck you to anyone who would place the well being of a rat above that of my dying family member. Yes. If anyone in this thread holds that position, which one does, I'll say fuck you again.


Also, did you also not, in a reply to me, admit being antagonizing?

I told you since we both agree animal testing is OK in certain situations your contrarian position is going to get nothing but rudeness from me.




Do you think condescension, rudeness, and calling me a troll is not antagonizing?

You agree animal testing is Ok in certain situations. No need for you to continue with whatever it is you're doing in this thread.



You do remember that you messaged me first and told me to stop posting replies here? I messaged you and asked if you could hold off quoting my posts for the night. I asked if you could get back to them the next day because, as I said, this issue is personal for me and your contrarian antagonistic position was getting the better of me. I was trying to defuse hostility which only resulted in more antagonizing nonsense from you. You told me you'd post whenever and wherever you want after which I told you, in that case, I only have ruse comments for you.




In terms of pain, it is true that they are no different.

Prove that. In any event that's not the argument. The argument is a rat has the same value as a human. "what makes them different from humans" is the argument against animal testing from an animal liberation perspective. This is why I asked Mariel the question- a rat and a human are on fire 100 yards away from each other and she in in the center. Which one would she run to to save? She won't answer it. Anyhow, what's your point? We both agree animal testing is acceptable when necessary.

[Ele'ill]

so they also oppose development ie industrialization.


that isn't primitivism


she won't answer it

I did answer it which is why you are no longer talking to me directly.

[Crixus]

Does testing on unwilling humans offer potential benefits for humans? Does it minimize the suffering and extend lives?

Yes, my mother had stage three cancer (she's 85 by the way), had a double mastectomy (animal testing to thank ) radiation therapy (animal testing to thank) and two different drugs that minimize estrogen production (animal testing to thank). It all saved her life. She was bout 78 when diagnosed. Now she has Alzheimer's and is on medication that slows the progression of the disease. Medication that wouldnt have been possible without the study of Alzheimer's in animals. You would have the effectiveness of medication and dissection of living beings to study the progression of the disease be done on humans. No thanks. I posted some information on it in a post above but if you want to play scientist we can sit here and quote in detail from the scientific community which sorry to say, the overwhelming majority consensus now is that animal testing is necessary.

[Crixus]

that isn't primitivism



I did answer it which is why you are no longer talking to me directly.
Go back to my post, I said
The theory within the more politically active and economically minded Vegan circles concerning population and industrialization is that much of the world is not open to Vegan ideals and many regions are in the process of 'development' which means industrialized animal consumption is going to exponentially increase instead of decrease. Within the "left" this has pushed a lot of animal liberation activists into a more primitivist mindsetAnd to deny that some of the direct action activists, both ALF and ELF are primitivists is silly. This isn't even the issue at hand. The issue is animal testing and in a prior post you admitted it has benefits. So, why arent these benefits worth it? This brings me to my question- A human and a rat are both on fire 100 yards away from eachother. You are in the center. Which one do you run to first to try to save?

[Ele'ill]

Go back to my post, I said And to deny that some of the direct action activists, both ALF and ELF are primitivists is silly. This isn't even the issue at hand. The issue is animal testing and in a prior post you admitted it has benefits. So, why arent these benefits worth it? This brings me to my question- A human and a rat are both on fire 100 yards away from eachother. You are in the center. Which one do you run to first to try to save?

1. I already answered your silly + ridiculous, inaccurately incoherent question several times in several different ways. As did Quail.

2. what proof do you have that any of them are specifically primitivists

3. to your previous post, you attempting to restart the conversation over again is a desperate attempt to muddy the water and buy you and your sinking ship of an argument time. It started with you finger pointing and blaming another user for trolling and provoking you simply for posting and that's about when you lost it.


4. why are you not an advocate of testing on unwilling humans

[Lord Hargreaves]

The arguments for testing on animals never seem wholly convincing in my book.

For instance, looking through the quotes Crixus provided on Alzheimer's:


The need for animal research The need to study the brain itself is a primary reason for using animals in research. Scientists can observe in autopsies of human brains the abnormalities and changes related to Alzheimer’s. But in most cases, an autopsy shows the braining the advanced stages of the disease and provides little information about earlier changes that may have begun years before. In order to understand the disease in progress, researchers often use animals, usually mice, genetically altered to carry a human gene that introduces a particular biological feature of Alzheimer’s. Mice, which reach adulthood in a couple of months, create a kind of fast-track model that enables researchers to study disease progression.

So animals don't get Alzheimer's, nor do they (it would seem) suffer from any comparable condition. Instead a single human gene is introduced to try and synthesize some sort of model. But what can something so seemingly artificial tell us about the reality of living with Alzheimer's?

And by just introducing a gene, you can supposedly isolate its impact on the person's condition:

[...]By looking at a single factor in isolation, researchers may learn about its particular role in Alzheimer’s or a related disorder. By looking at two or more carefully selected factors, they can observe how multiple factors may influence each other.

This already seems rather reductionist and deterministic. Its the "take every little thing apart and then see how it all fits back together" method. But is that really an appropriate type of analysis in the case of mental issues in human beings?

But then:

Scientists studying Alzheimer’s disease and other disorders that cause dementia use numerous research strategies. Many of these efforts do not require the use of animals. These include large population studies that may reveal risk factors and potential prevention strategies, experiments with cell cultures that provide insight into the activities of disease-related molecules and potential drug compounds, brain images that may show structural and functional changes in the brain, and computer models that simulate the structure and function of proteins and drug compounds. However, because these investigations do not create a complete picture of what happens to the brain in Alzheimer’s disease, there are important studies that depend on the use of animal.

So here apparently the opposite its true: animals are needed because they are complex living beings that can provide a "complete picture" - as against cell cultures and modelling, which (presumably) only looks at some things in isolation. I'm not sure how this argument and the immediate preceding argument fit together?

Finally:

The majority of Alzheimer's Society's research programme does not involve animals

If animal research is really the silver bullet, then why is the above true? It suggests to me that even if animal research remains today indispensable at some level, it will not provide the main material of any breakthrough in understanding and treating the condition.

[Fionnagáin]

No, that question gets to the heart of the matter. It's not a "loaded question".
You gave Quail the option of accepting between two inauthentic positions, constructed to serve your already-decided upon arguments rather than to engage with what she's actually trying to say. If it's not a loaded question, what is it?

[Crixus]

1. I already answered your silly + ridiculous, inaccurately incoherent question several times in several different ways. As did Quail.

No you didn't answer the question. Pick one. Which would you run to the human or the rat? Multiple choice question with two choices. No third option. Which one? It's not silly in the least it's actually well crafted to expose the fact you place a humans life on equal basis with a rats life.


2. what proof do you have that any of them are specifically primitivists

Walter Bond. Just to name one who's been caught. Most 'leftists' or socialist animal rights advocates are of the green anarchist tradition but this mixes with anarcho primitivists. They're not exactly posting their names and political ideology online after direct action so... Many of the animal liberation activists are only concerned with animals and not anarchists or socialists of any stripe. I also said "a more primitivist mindset' which is what I would consider green anarchism- not necessarily anarcho primitivism proper. On to the next distraction?


3. to your previous post, you attempting to restart the conversation over again is a desperate attempt to muddy the water and buy you and your sinking ship of an argument time. It started with you finger pointing and blaming another user for trolling and provoking you simply for posting and that's about when you lost it. The ship isnt sinking. I have no idea why I'm the only one in this thread trying to talk sense into you. Talk about "muddying the water". Poison the well much? He's trolling because he accepts animal testing yet is taking a contrarian position nit picking what or who is antagonizing who and whether or not animal liberation activists are sometimes primitivistts. His/her contributions have no real value to this conversation other than to thank your posts and criticize mine when we both agree on animal testing.



4. why are you not an advocate of testing on unwilling humans

Because i"m not a psychopath and because I place more value on human life than i do a rats life.

[Crixus]

You gave Quail the option of accepting between two inauthentic positions, constructed to serve your already-decided upon arguments rather than to engage with what she's actually trying to say. If it's not a loaded question, what is it?
"Inauthentic"? You need to give credit where credit is due. The question cuts to the heart of the matter and if answered honestly would either make her (intellectually, not emotionally) accept animal testing or expose her for being misanthropic. Her view that rats have the same value as human life is indeed misanthropic. This is why no one will answer it.

At the end of the day we can all post scientific information which, in the end, will overwhelmingly be in the favor of the current need for animal testing so why don't we go down that road in lieu of focusing on trivial idealist notions of morality? The thing is, Mariel already admitted there's benefits to animal testing so her opposition is grounded in her opinion that animals are equal to humans. Do you also feel this way?

[melvin]

I'm going to go further than soso, I hope these bastards get hanged. Every year this research is delayed, that's another million people more who have to suffer these diseases. So I don't think it's hyperbole to say that these people deserve a good old fashion lynching.this is ridiculous. how can you read yourself advocating vigilante lynching and then think it's a solid idea?

[Ele'ill]

No you didn't answer the question. Pick one. Which would you run to the human or the rat? Multiple choice question with two choices. No third option. Which one? It's not silly in the least it's actually well crafted to expose the fact you place a humans life on equal basis with a rats life.

i already explained that to compare a question like that to what we're talking about you'd have include setting the rat(s) on fire in order to save the humans life, which is about as ridiculous as animal testing, that would be what we're discussing in this thread. It's a shitty inadequate question that you yourself provided the possible answers for. :rolleyes:



Walter Bond. Just to name one who's been caught. Most 'leftists' or socialist animal rights advocates are of the green anarchist tradition but this mixes with anarcho primitivists. They're not exactly posting their mnakes and political ideology after direct action so... ah so you have no proof other than that one guy nice





Many of the animal liberation activists are only concerned with animals and not anarchists or socialists of any stripe.simply false



I also said "a more primitivist mindset' which is what I would consider green anarchism- not necessarily anarcho primitivism proper. On to the next distraction?uh huh :rolleyes:




The ship isnt sinking. I have no idea why I'm the only one in this thread trying to talk sense into you.Because nobody else wants to touch the subject when I'm around because I'm smart and bring up good points.




Talk about "muddying the water". Poison the well much? He's trolling because he accepts animal testing yet is taking contrarian position nit picking what what or who is antagonizing who and whether or not animal liberation activists are sometimes primitivistts.I dunno what you just said here but primitivists are a minority



His/her contributions have no real value to this conversation other than to thank your posts and criticize mine when we both agree on animal testing.so ur mad because someone is thanking my posts that's petty




because I place more value on human life than i do a rats life.why

[Fourth Internationalist]

I agree with you. Animal testing should only be done when necessary in a humane fashion. I didn't make up your views.

You crtitisized me for being on an "little idealist moralistic crusade" and went on to say "Fuck you" to me. Since you we share the same thoughts on animal testing, why would you say my views are idealist and moralist unless you're accusing me of being anti-animal testing?


I never said all animal liberation activists are primitivists. I said in the Bay Area and Pacific north west those animal liberation activists who are also involved in political/economic struggles (socialists) are usually anarchists who are also environmental activists and the root cause of the "animal holocaust" and the "rape" of the earth is industrialization and global development. They rightly understand most peopel on earth arent open to being Vegan and with the further development around the globe the "animal holocaust" is only going to increase so they also oppose development ie industrialization. Of course not all animal liberation activists take this position. Fair enough, though I think that those people you describe are at a small minority of radical animal liberationists.

Where have I lied? Quote it. I say fuck you to anyone who would place the well being of a rat above that of my dying family member. Yes. If anyone in this thread holds that position, which one does, I'll say fuck you again. In a direct response to me, you said...
"You grow up and think about the human consequences your little idealist moralistic crusade has. I am quite grown up and had to have my mother move into my house due to advancing Alzheimer's. She's sitting in the other room right now quite confused and here I am "debating" whether or not poor little mice and rats should be hurt in an effort to treat her. Yes, fuck you." ...where did I tell you I am against Alzheimer's research involving animals?


I told you since we both agree animal testing is OK in certain situations your contrarian position is going to get nothing but rudeness from me. What contrary position?


You agree animal testing is Ok in certain situations. No need for you to continue with whatever it is you're doing in this thread. I am allowed to post in this thread in response to your antagonizing and rude posts.


I messaged you and asked if you could hold off quoting my posts for the night. I asked if you could get back to them the next day because, as I said, this issue is personal for me and your contrarian antagonistic position was getting the better of me.
So, here's our conversation...


You:I have nothing to offer you in the animal testing thread but anger at the moment. Please stop quoting my posts for the day. Come back to my posts tomorrow but right now isnt a good time.

Me:No. I'll post where I want when I want.

You: and I'll continue to be condescending and patronizing in the face of idealist quackery. Fair enough.

Note:That is where you called my views idealist quackery, despite that fact that I don't necessarily oppose all humane research using animals. Here you lied and so now I am going to be rude, but you started with the rudeness. I can't see how your words here are "diffusing the hostility"

Me: So lie and make up more shit? Yeah, okay. Fine with me.

You: Lie about what? That animal testing has benefits for humans? The only liars are the idealist quacks who have a misguided moral agenda to stop animal testing. I don't even know what your point is seeing you just said you don't oppose animal testing. Just go away. Antagonize someone else.

Me:No, I mean lie about my views in your arguments against me.






I was trying to defuse hostility which only resulted in more antagonizing nonsense from you. You told me you'd post whenever and wherever you want after which I told you, in that case, I only have ruse comments for you. If you wanted to diffuse hostility you could stop accusing me of "idealist quackery" despite that fact that you know I am not completely anti-animal testing. To quote you, "I'll continue to be condescending and patronizing" How on Earth am I supposed to be kind to you when you call me an idealist crusader, promise to be rude to me, and constantly say "Fuck you" to me?


Prove that. All animals are sentient. Maybe 50 years ago it was a (possibly) debatable question, now it is not. They feel pain, you feel pain, I feel pain.


In any event that's not the argument. The argument is a rat has the same value as a human. "what makes them different from humans" is the argument against animal testing from an animal liberation perspective. This is why I asked Mariel the question- a rat and a human are on fire 100 yards away from each other and she in in the center. Which one would she run to to save? She won't answer it. Anyhow, what's your point? We both agree animal testing is acceptable when necessary.I was just saying that they are no different when it comes to the issue of pain.


He's trolling because he accepts animal testing yet is taking a contrarian position nit picking what or who is antagonizing who and whether or not animal liberation activists are sometimes primitivistts. His/her contributions have no real value to this conversation other than to thank your posts and criticize mine when we both agree on animal testing.

If you feel I am a troll, please, go report me in the troll alert thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/fascist-and-troll-t171149/index.html).

[melvin]

Officials know the organization responsible, they negotiated with them, and have photos of them posted on their social media sites in the act of their crime.why on earth did they think that posting photos to social media of themselves doing this was a good idea?

[Crixus]

In today's news:

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/1843/20130509/researchers-identify-protein-reverse-aging-heart.htm



To test this hypothesis, the researchers employed an old but little-used technique in which they surgically linked the circulatory system of 2-year-old mice with 2-month-old mice by opening a flap of skin on the side of each one and stitching them together.
Sure enough, after four weeks of exposure to the circulation of the young mice, the heart muscles in the older mice decreased dramatically and began to resemble the hearts of the younger mice.
The reason, they discovered was a protein called GDF-11.
The potential impacts of the discovery are, Wagers and Lee believe, are tremendous.

But since mice and humans are equal, according to the line of thought Mariel operates from, these researcher's are no different than Dr Death Mengele who would experiment on unwilling humans.

[Crixus]

You crtitisized me for being on an "little idealist moralistic crusade" and went on to say "Fuck you" to me. Since you we share the same thoughts on animal testing, why would you say my views are idealist and moralist unless you're accusing me of being anti-animal testing?
This is going to be my last response to any of your posts in this thread. Probably on the overall site as well. I said fuck you to anyone who places a rats life on the same level as a humans life. A feeling most people agree with and I'm not the only one who has actually said that in this thread.


In a direct response to me, you said

"You grow up and think about the human consequences your little idealist moralistic crusade has. I am quite grown up and had to have my mother move into my house due to advancing Alzheimer's. She's sitting in the other room right now quite confused and here I am "debating" whether or not poor little mice and rats should be hurt in an effort to treat her. Yes, fuck you."


where did I tell you I am against Alzheimer's research involving animals?

If you don't oppose humane animal testing for medical science when necessary we have no issue. I assumed you did seeing you're, well, what is it you have a problem with? It took me a minute to figure out why you're being a contrarian antagonizer seeing I'm having a conversation with 5 different people at once as I first thought you opposed animal testing and I'm going to repeat what I said without the fuck you. Grow up kid. You don't oppose animal testing. You have no reason to be poking sticks at me in this thread beyond some childish game. I'm no longer playing along. I have better things to do with my time other than argue semantics with a person who agrees with me. I'm not going to continue with letting a childs egotistical game bother me in the slightest. You are indeed acting your age. Totally natural. Go be yourself. Away from me.




What contrary position?
I am allowed to post in this thread in response to your antagonizing and rude posts.

Very convenient you deleted our conversation on your home page where I respectfully asked you to not quote me just for the night and to come back to my posts the next day, because of the personal nature of this 'debate', the emotional investment I have and the fact I'm in here 'debating' five different people coupled with the strange contrarian nature of your posts I asked you and you only to chill on quoting my posts because I didn't have the time and or energy to figure out what the hell was motivating you after I figured out you support animal testing. You in turn told me too bad and you'll do anything you want after which I told you I was only going to be rude to you if you continued. Which you did. Now I'm simply going to ignore you as you have no point. You never did. We both approve of animal testing. What your point is I still don't know or care to know. The source of my rudeness to you is because of your strange contrarian antagonistic game in this thread. There's no point to it. This response is a waste of time. I'm not going to waste anymore time in the future.




So, here's our conversation...
You deleted the conversation from your home page. I wonder why you'd do that? Then you come into this thread repositioning the conversion to fit whatever trollish agenda you have in here. I think that behavior is strange. I'm not going to engage it in the future.




If you feel I am a troll, please, go report me in the troll alert thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/fascist-and-troll-t171149/index.html).
I don't need to report anyone for anything I'm simply not going to respond to your strange agenda after this post. the mods would have to objectively read each post in this thread which would be an even bigger waste of time than me responding to your posts. The fact you deleted the posts I left on your page then come in this thread remaking the conversion in your favor speaks volume. The fact you are, for whatever reason, poking sticks at each one of my posts when you yourself support animal testing speaks volume. You're trolling. You're being antagionistic and it worked. Congratulations. You win. I responded. It had the intended effect. Go bake yourself a cake.

[Fourth Internationalist]

In today's news:

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/1843/20130509/researchers-identify-protein-reverse-aging-heart.htm



But since mice and humans are equal, according to the line of thought Mariel operates from, these researcher's are no different than Dr Death Mengele who would experiment on unwilling humans.

I think its sad that because someone like Mari3L views all animals as equal, you accuse them of believing that transferring small flabs of skin in mice is equivalent to Nazi concentration camp medical experiments. Your accusation is absurd and highly offensive.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I always delete my visitor messages, btw. If you checked, you would have seen that my first page (page 3) was all deleteted over a month before i delted the last pages of messages. I do so every month or two. They were up in my user profile until yesterday. I attacked your messages in this thread way before i delted them. I thought this thread had died. I copied and pasted them here. Every word is here.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I find it highly amusing that you're attacking me for my age. That has nothing to do with this. You have no actual argument if that's all you can attack me for.

[Crixus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights_and_the_Holocaust

[Fourth Internationalist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights_and_the_Holocaust

I know that there are those who compare the entire animal industry to the holocaust. But no one is equating the transferring of a small slab of skin to Nazi medical experiments, which is what you claimed. There is a HUGE difference. Do you not understand?

[Crixus]

I read a lot of militant vegan/animal abolitionist blogs and texts. They literally do not really differentiate between humans and animals. They think chickens, mice etc are as aware and feeling and conscious as humans. Understanding this helps make their actions make more sense I think.
Not really, for me it makes their actions all the more absurd but you are correct this is at the foundation of the ideology.

[Crixus]

Originally Posted by Lord Hargreaves http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2612406#post2612406)
If you believe in the research so much, why don't you volunteer to be a human guinea pig?Because that's what guinea pigs, mice, rabbits and sometimes primates are for.



Originally Posted by User Name http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2612499#post2612499)
It's just a question for those that are for animal testing. Like, why should we test on animals that did nothing to deserve to be put thru, often, immense pain when there are murderers and torturers and other horrible people? I don't think we should but it's more logical than animal testing if you belive that animal testing is necessary.Yes, I know. So why is it better to be cruel to animals that did nothing wrong than on humans that have murdered?
Originally Posted by TheExAnarchist http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2612983#post2612983)
Is there actually someone on this forum that supports this attack? I'd love to know. Yes. People who place a rats life on teh same level as a humans life.



Originally Posted by Rednordman remarkably its seems so. seriously these activist really wont be happy until we are doing these tests on humans. strange sad twisted people. imo. and anyway, advocating using serious criminals for scientific testing is the sort of thing that gives the BNP wet dreams. Indeed.



Originally Posted by Mari3L

Nobody said 'animal testing has no benefit to humans

what is the difference between two animals if they feel the same or similar levels of physical pain, emotional distress, sickness etc..

But the animals in the tests suffer the same and similar emotional distress and physical pain that humans would. What is your reason to not test on humans.

Why are they (humans and mice) different?

why do you place human welfare above animal welfare?

oh and the 'humans are no different than animals argument' is something that I've asked three times now in this thread and nobody from your side of the discussion seems to want to go anywhere near it go figure


Even goldfish are sentient in that they are capable of puffing up to intimidate a larger fish and will back down when they realize they are not as big, but attack if they realize they are larger.

I don't kill roaches (cockroaches)

when two animal suffer the same or similar physical pain and emotional distress why do you pick one over the other

Does testing on unwilling humans offer potential benefits for humans? Does it minimize the suffering and extend lives? (* the implication being why not test on unwilling humans)

why are you not an advocate of testing on unwilling humans?

Because nobody else wants to touch the subject when I'm around because I'm smart and bring up good points. I place more value on the life of a human being over the life of a rat. That's why I support animal testing which, by your own admission, has health benefits for humans. Why do you think a rats life is as valuable as a humans? This "animal holocaust" must be a horrible thing for you to endure each day. It would be like modern people living in NAZI Germany viewing, each day, mass slaughter of innocent life. What do you do when people eat meat in front of you? Does eating meat have the potential to alleviate human suffering? Maybe you should support "direct action" against meat eaters? Anyhow, studies have shown that ants play, that they make democratic decisions within the colony. That they suffer and feel joy. You call them 'pests'. You place animals on a higher plane of existence than ants and therefore ants are, well, expendable. I place humans on a higher plane of existence than rats. Therefore rats are expendable.

[Crixus]

why on earth did they think that posting photos to social media of themselves doing this was a good idea?
Because people who think rats are no different than humans and thus deserve the same treatment are, well, not operating in, lets say, a cerebral fashion. Ah, the cerebral cortex! I wonder if this little guy pictured below has one?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Rattus_norvegicus_1.jpg

Nope.

I wonder if the cancer researchers in the link below get funding from pharma corporations or any corporations? Nope. Their research must be tainted with the profit motive somehow...yes? They can't really be interested in both a cure for cancer and ways to minimize suffering/extend human life?

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2011/06/21/animal-research-is-helping-us-beat-cancer/

[Tenka]

http://ljconstantine.com/babycakes/page1.htm

I didn't know Gaiman was that kind of imbecile.... :(
Every human is an animal, but no animals but humans are humans. Human babies are humans. If a specie does not look out for itself above all other species it is a pretty uniquely human kind of dumb. That is all.

edit: Sorry for replying to a kind of old post. I haven't been to this thread in a while....

[Luís Henrique]

I think its sad that because someone like Mari3L views all animals as equal, you accuse them of believing that transferring small flabs of skin in mice is equivalent to Nazi concentration camp medical experiments. Your accusation is absurd and highly offensive.

While it may be highly offensive, it does not seem absurd.

If all animals are equal, why is it worse to subject an unwilling human to painful and potentially harmful experiments than to subject an unwilling mouse (or drosophila fly, fwiw) to painful and potentially harmful experiments?

And if subjecting an unwilling human to painful and potentially harmful experiments is worse than subjecting an unwilling mouse to painful and potentially harmful experiments, how are mice and men "equal"?

Luís Henrique

[Fourth Internationalist]

While it may be highly offensive, it does not seem absurd.

If all animals are equal, why is it worse to subject an unwilling human to painful and potentially harmful experiments than to subject an unwilling mouse (or drosophila fly, fwiw) to painful and potentially harmful experiments?

And if subjecting an unwilling human to painful and potentially harmful experiments is worse than subjecting an unwilling mouse to painful and potentially harmful experiments, how are mice and men "equal"?

Luís Henrique

Because the nature of the test he referred to is not at all like Nazi medical experiments. Then, he goes on to accuse another member of believing that they are the same! Yes, accusing Mari3L of equating the transferring of a slab of skin with Nazi medical experiments is extremely offensive AND absurd.

[Ele'ill]

I place more value on the life of a human being over the life of a rat.


because I place more value on human life than i do a rats life.why



That's why I support animal testing which, by your own admission, has health benefits for humans.I'm sure a lot of really fucked up stuff could




Why do you think a rats life is as valuable as a humans?autonomy of a creature that feels similar pain and distress in a non survival scenario since there are alternatives being held off by capital



This "animal holocaust" must be a horrible thing for you to endure each day. It would be like modern people living in NAZI Germany viewing, each day, mass slaughter of innocent life.Is this your opinion or what


What do you do when people eat meat in front of you?This doesn't happen very often. Most of my omnivorous friends enjoy going to places that have vegan options. Else, I ignore it. The only thing worse than a lecturing vegan is the ecclesiastical orgasming over flesh just because it has become a sacred verbal tool in the domination of vegans and vegetarians, a verbal tool that more often than not is literally just 'mmmmmeatmmeatmeat mmm look at meihav meat inside of my mouth'.



Does eating meat have the potential to alleviate human suffering?ignoring the alternatives contributes to human suffering as do most flippant mass opinions




Maybe you should support "direct action" against meat eaters?Actually a funny point, a few friends in the past were meat eaters unhappy with their dieting attempts and upon my suggestion for them to try a vegan diet they reached their goals. One of them became extremely disillusioned with animal industry and is now in favor of animal liberation who I talk with regularly. I armed them with a suggestion and they had options they could pursue on their own.

If your question is do I think that direct action of any type is like a cure all within the scope of the individual action itself no I don't think that and that is very rarely the intention. If you want to talk about the merits and downfalls of direct action that's for another thread.




Anyhow, studies have shown that ants play, that they make democratic decisions within the colony. That they suffer and feel joy. You call them 'pests'.Actually, I gave an example earlier in this thread about ants and how I don't spray for practical reasons (and because I really don't want to poison another living thing). Sometimes it requires a little energy and understanding of the world around you to coexist especially in small spaces like apartments.



You place animals on a higher plane of existence than ants and therefore ants are, well, expendable. I place humans on a higher plane of existence than rats. Therefore rats are expendable.lol, had you read the thread maybe you would have come to a more honest conclusion to what people's positions are on things :rolleyes:

[Vanguard1917]

why

Serious question? Next you'll be saying plague-carrying rats shouldn't be exterminated (we wouldn't exterminate diseased humans now, would we?).

[Dropdead]

Are you people even serious when you're saying that rats are the same value as human? Sounds absurd.

[Vanguard1917]

Are you people even serious when you're saying that rats are the same value as human? Sounds absurd.

Understatement of the century? :)

[Ele'ill]

Serious question?

answer it :confused:



Next you'll be saying plague-carrying rats shouldn't be exterminated (we wouldn't exterminate diseased humans now, would we?).

if you're looking at possible scenarios this fuzzily and uncritically you'd likely support the extermination of humans as well and I mean this is obvious without even mentioning animal liberation as a part of that equation

[Vanguard1917]

answer it :confused:




if you're looking at possible scenarios this fuzzily and uncritically you'd likely support the extermination of humans as well and I mean this is obvious without even mentioning animal liberation as a part of that equation

:confused:

Just to be clear on what i do believe: humans with diseases should be treated or cured; rats with diseases harmful to humans and their means of subsistence should be exterminated en masse. Not much fuzzy there.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Yes. People who place a rats life on teh same level as a humans life.

Why is a quote of mine in a post of yours if you wanted to stop the debate? And what point is it for?

[Luís Henrique]

Because the nature of the test he referred to is not at all like Nazi medical experiments. Then, he goes on to accuse another member of believing that they are the same! Yes, accusing Mari3L of equating the transferring of a slab of skin with Nazi medical experiments is extremely offensive AND absurd.

Well, so it is just a problem of how painful each procediment is?

But I am pretty sure that some experiments on mice are as painful as Mengele's horrors (and, conversely, that not all Mengele's "experiments" were necessarily mindboggling brutal).

So the point still stands: if the same degree of cruelty is applied to mice and unwilling humans for the sake of scientific knowledge, is it the same from a moral point of view?

Mari3l's view seems to be that yes, both are morally equivalent. My position is equally clear, and diammetrically opposed: no, there is absolutely no moral equivalence between both. What is your position?

Luís Henrique

[Ele'ill]

:confused:

Just to be clear on what i do believe: humans with diseases should be treated or cured; rats with diseases harmful to humans and their means of subsistence should be exterminated en masse. Not much fuzzy there.


the mass extermination of a community/species isn't the solution to stop plagues there are other factors involved in why plagues spread, other causes, that once again have been ignored via mass opinion despite your position as a revolutionary leftist- that is what I meant

[Ele'ill]

Well, so it is just a problem of how painful each procediment is?

But I am pretty sure that some experiments on mice are as painful as Mengele's horrors (and, conversely, that not all Mengele's "experiments" were necessarily mindboggling brutal).

So the point still stands: if the same degree of cruelty is applied to mice and unwilling humans for the sake of scientific knowledge, is it the same from a moral point of view?

Mari3l's view seems to be that yes, both are morally equivalent. My position is equally clear, and diammetrically opposed: no, there is absolutely no moral equivalence between both. What is your position?

Luís Henrique

My point is that such tests/experiments are equally as painful and distressing for both, no morals involved, the moral position you are taking is one is okay, the other isn't, and you are unable to explain why

[Tenka]

My point is that such tests/experiments are equally as painful and distressing for both, no morals involved, the moral position you are taking is one is okay, the other isn't, and you are unable to explain why

Probably for the simple fact that he doesn't value a rat's life as much as a human's life. That would be my explanation, but I can't answer on his behalf. I am an unflinching Speciesist.

edit: also never mind that it's impossible to estimate just how much distress is caused a rat and how it is experienced without grossly anthropomorphising....

[Luís Henrique]

My point is that such tests/experiments are equally as painful and distressing for both

Which is obviously false.

First, men are social animals, much more than mice or any other critters, so the pain caused to one person affects other individuals in a way that the pain caused to one mouse does not.

Second, men are rational animals; we can anticipate and remember, something that mice cannot. The pain caused to a person will be, potentially, permanently with her, in her memory. The simple threat of harm will be harmful to humans, in a way it is not to mice.


no morals involved

Of course there are morals involved, you are trying to derive a moral code of conduct from your supposedly "neutral" premise...


the moral position you are taking is one is okay, the other isn't

Evidently. And the moral position you are taking is that I am wrong.


and you are unable to explain why

Well, I am not, as shown above.

But you are still unable to explain why we should care about mice or flies' welfare as much as about human welfare, or why do you think that pain or distress are so much important, superceding any other moral criteria.

Luís Henrique

[Vanguard1917]

edit: also never mind that it's impossible to estimate just how much distress is caused a rat and how it is experienced without grossly anthropomorphising....

Well put. We tend to do the latter a lot, despite the fact that humans experience pain quite differently to other animals. Pain in humans is not just a reflex reaction to tissue damage but also a sensory and emotional experience (source (http://www.iasp-pain.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Pain_Definitions)). We make the false assumption that it's felt in the same way by all other animals.

[No_Leaders]

I'll never understand why some leftists actually scratch that, the lot of folks on here are so hostile towards animal rights activists. Animal liberation should go hand in hand with human liberation. I've said this many times but their oppression is our oppression, their sentient beings who are capable of understanding things like fear, pain, love, happiness. If some rich money grubbing pharma companies wanna test their products and drugs on defenseless animals why don't they test the shit on themselves. See how humane it is to drop chemicals in their own eyes, potentially blinding them, forcing tubes in their throats to force feed them a drug or chemical, to see how fast it goes through their skin and bloodstream, or the countless products they apply onto animals skins to see the effects it has i.e. burning, skin disorders, rashes, inflammation, etc. Yet of course if those tests were done on humans, i'm sure there'd be outcry over it.