vivisection

[johnny limelight]

well here goes my first post. i dont know if it has alredy been done but my apologies if it has.

My opposition to vivisection both for cosmetics and medical stems from the fact that I believe that I have come along way from the very early days when some 300,000 years ago my ancestors climbed down from the trees and stood upright and walked tall. All along this history of man is filled with cruelty and barbaric acts inflicted on mankind and the animal kingdom up to this very present day. Not to long ago we recently saw the gas chambers and the ethnic cleansing in the Yugoslavia. White rhinos, the Bengal tigers and many others have been hunted until extinsion by the ape that got lucky and appointed himself the “great god”. African men eat bush meat, their cousins and this cannibalism is abhorrent. The acts of torture of beautiful animals so that women can wear a little smudge of red on their lips is vile. Yes, I do believe that mankind has come a long way from the days of tree climbing but we still have a long way to go, unfortunately our stay is now more than half way and time is running out for the human race.

We must not allow ourselves to be conned by this 19th century lie that vivisection can save the human race. This never ending fascination for living longer is one fashion I hope we soon kick the habit. Drugs to keep you young are wrong if it involves animal suffering. For me the whole issue of vivisection and that if “your child was ill” is a red herring. Of course if my child was seriously ill then of course I would experiment of anything that moved-even you If I could only get my hands on you, but this are not the point and is parroted out by the interested parties so much that the public have now become to accept this myth.

The vivisection myth is more to do with large multinationals making a profit than saving lives. It is more to do with warfare and the next generation of weapons than saving one single child.

Tipu Aziz, an eastern Pakistani oxford based neurosurgeon, a nice fellow who likes to slice monkeys heads off and abuse them in the name of science now wants the research for cosmetics to continue so that some ugly woman can beautify herself- mutton dressed as lamb springs to mind.

tipu's god Allah the merciful one does not extend this mercy to all of his creations. These poor animals are tortured so the mentally sick can inflict their perverted passion for legalised torture. These gangsters are not real men, they dare not stand up to a proper man, and they lie about their trade.

My objection to this bloke is more to do with his dirty trade than him being a Muslim. I just pointed out that he has decided that he was the “great god” on earth. For me he has lost all rights to the moral argument the moment he sliced open one of our less evolutionary relatives.

Let’s look at some of the reasons why we can not trust or learn from vivisection: - drugs behave differently in different spices, animals bodies and immune system are different to ours. For example man needs to eat fruit and vegetables in order to produce vitamin “c” but other animals do not because their own bodies can reproduce it for themselves. I believe that arsenic is harmless to monkeys but kills people. In the human race there are about four different blood groups but not in animals.

At the oxford torture labs macaque monkeys were placed in front of computer screens in small cages. There they had to identify different colour screens for rewards of food. After half had parts of their visual cortex of brains removed and retested. This experiment was conducted for the sole perpurse of identify the role of the parts of brain involved in “priming”. These results were already known with experiments taken out on humans when scanning their brains whilst taking out visual tasks. I can only conclude that these experiments were only taken out by sadist who were born too late and missed out on the gas chambers massacre. These and more experiments are taken regularly every year in projects lasting months and in some extreme case, lasting years. One thing that all these animals have in common are the fact death is welcome visitor to these poor retches. Prior to death they suffer seizures, vomiting and diarrhoea, and tremors and then death and peace descends over their little bodies, god bless them and their poor souls.

Other experiments include, beagle dogs given stomach ulcers.
Cuts were made in the bodies of pregnant rats and metal screws cooled in liquid nitrogen were held against the developing heads of the baby rats. The baby rats were later killed and their brains removed so that the amount of damage could be assessed. Three research workers shot around twenty monkeys just above the eye and then watched to see how long it took them to die. One monkey survived for over two and a half hours. Why?

Isn’t it about time now that we have entered the 21st century that we should extend compassion to all living things? We are not that different to these animals in the fact that we want to pursue a life without pain and suffering and live our lives freely, that we all want to pass our genes. Let’s end these so called experiments, let’s pull down these torture camps after all ask yourself would you like your family treated in the same way to find out the answer to HIV in cats?

Yours respectfully
Comrade Johnny limelight.

[LSD]

well here goes my first post. i dont know if it has alredy been done

Many, many, many, many times.

Every few months or so we get a fresh invasion of "vegan power" types. Usually they end up storming off, ranting about our "barbarity" and "cruelty".

Occasionaly, though, they stick around and realize the error of their ways. In fact, just recently a now long-standing member apologized to me for some of his early posts in which he angrily defended "animal rights".

So don't worry, there's still hope for you yet! :lol:


ask yourself would you like your family treated in the same way to find out the answer to HIV in cats?

I wouldn't.

But how about you "ask yourself" how you'd like being irradiated to death. Having your molecules break apart as you slowly decompose alive. Don't like it? Well, I'd imagine not, but that's what a cancer cell experiences durring chemotherapy.

How about being boiled alive? Not so much fun is it? Well, sorry, but that's what your body does to naturally fight bacteria.

Here's a good one, how about being crushed to death from above! How awful! But oh no :o that's what you just did to that poor little ant you stepped on. :(

And last but not least, how about being ripped apart and eaten!? :o

My God, that sounds like something those evil MEAT-EATERS would do! :angry:

But guess what? That was you eating your dinner of brussel-sprouts and baked carrots. :lol:

I'll bet that carrot sure didn't see the "vegan love" as you ripped it from the ground and "murdered" it!

You see, when you take the POV of a non-human life form, you anthropomorphize and hyperbolize. You delve into the realm of story telling which is a great ways away from the land of rational discourse.

It was is not "wrong" to kill cancer cells, it is not "wrong" to kill bacteria, it is not "wrong" to eat carrots, and it is not "wrong" to eat meat. If you want to try and provide argumentation otherwise, that's one thing, but all that you have provided so far is a pittiful attempt at illiciting a pathetic response.

But then, basically, that's all that PETA does, isn't it? I mean since it has virtually no rational argumenation to support its contention, it's pretty much got "no choice" but to perpetualy show horrific videos and mock holocaust victims.

That contention, incidently, is that we enact "total animal liberation". That is that we make all animals (but not plants, don't ask me why :rolleyes:), de facto members of human society with all rights and privelges thereof.

Not only is such a proposal ludicrous at face, it would also be monumentally destructive if ever enacted.

Luckily, of course, PETA doesn't have a chance in hell of ever getting any of its pie in the sky nutbag post-modern crap realized. Still, though, we're unfortunately forced to listen to their indefatigable blathering every time some new member of the cult of Newkirk manages to stumble their way onto this site.

So, OK, I&#39;ll bite, let&#39;s see what "new" "arguments" you&#39;ve got. <_<


My opposition to vivisection both for cosmetics and medical stems from the fact that I believe that I have come along way from the very early days when some 300,000 years ago my ancestors climbed down from the trees and stood upright and walked tall.

um... where exactly was the argument there?

The fact that we evolved from less developed creatures is about as relevent as the fact that we breath oxygen. Sure, we&#39;re animals, but that doesn&#39;t mean we have a "common kinship" with "mother nature" or any metaphysical crap like that.

Human society has no obligations beyond its membership. It exists for the sole purpose of bennefiting those who compose it. Any expenditure of resources or opportunity cost sacrifices beyond this are implict misappropriations and abuses of power.

Any system of governance that adopts "veganism" or PETA/ALF "total animal liberation" as policy is implicitly engaging in mass exploitation and has conceded its right to exist.

Luckily, of course, any such system would also be popularly overthrown in a matter of days.


unfortunately our stay is now more than half way and time is running out for the human race

How on earth do you figure that?

And "our stay is now more than half way"? What the fuck does that even mean???


this never ending fascination for living longer is one fashion I hope we soon kick the habit.

Don&#39;t count on it.

The desire for a happier, longer life is one of the most basic we have. I sincerely doubt that any degree of "campainging" on your part is going to "kick" this particular drive.

People want to better themselves and those they care about. And despite the lies that PETA or the ALF will tell you, at present, there is simply no realistic alternative to animal testing.

In a recent survey of Nobel Prize winning medical researchers, a whopping 97% stated that they believe animal research to be essential for scientific progress.

Personally, I trust actual doctors far more than moralistic jackoffs with a messianic agenda to "free the animals".

Life isn&#39;t a Disney fantasy, and all creatures are not going to "live in harmony". The "vegan power" crowd needs to grow the fuck up and get over it.


Drugs to keep you young are wrong if it involves animal suffering.

"Wrong" in what sense?

If you mean "morally" wrong from a personal ethical perspective, than that&#39;s really your own decision to make. But if you mean externalistically wrong from a societal standpoint, then you are obligated to prove it.


The vivisection myth is more to do with large multinationals making a profit than saving lives.

Under capitalism, everything is about profit. As I&#39;ve said before, if it weren&#39;t ubiquitous, it weren&#39;t be worth fighting.

That means that while, yes, pharmacology and pharmacologial research is motivated by profit, that doesn&#39;t make it "evil".

Remember, the food that you eat and the clothes that you wear were also created out of a desire for profit, but you still use them all the same.

Personally, I can tell you that I would not be alive today if it were not for drugs developed thanks to animal research. That goes for tens of millions of others, many of which you probably know personally.

Have you ever met anyone with diabetes? Know anyone who ever suffered from cancer? Anyone you care about ever needed an antibiotic?

I just thought you should know that you are calling for them all to die. :angry:


Let’s look at some of the reasons why we can not trust or learn from vivisection: - drugs behave differently in different spices,

That&#39;s not a "reason", it&#39;s barely even an argument.

This has really got to be one of the stupidest anti-vivisection lines around, but somehow it never seems to die.

I mean, do you honestly think that researchers are that stupid? That if you know about these physiological differences, they don&#39;t?

The only reason that you can point to these specific biological facts is because some animal researcher collected the data. Believe me, they&#39;re smart enough to know how to interpret it as well.

Different animals are used for different purposes, specifically because of biological differences like the ones you mentioned.

And really, what&#39;s the alternative? Human testing&#33;? :o


animals bodies and immune system are different to ours.

I&#39;m sorry, I was under the impression that you were going to list the reasons that animal testing is "wrong"; posting the exact same arugment twice using different words does not count as two distinct arguments.

Again, no kidding animals are different from humans. That doesn&#39;t change the fact that billions of lives have been saved and will be saved thanks to research developed through animal testing.


Other experiments include, <SNIP>

So fucking what?

We&#39;re not talking about philosophy here, we&#39;re talking about reality. This is a question about the basic formation of human society and what its obligations are to external creatures.

You are contending that a collection of rational moral agents owes basic protections to implicit non-members out of solely emotionalist charity. Sorry, but that&#39;s not an argument.

Declaring that cows deserve special treatment but, say, bacterial meningitis does not is arbitrarity of the worst degree. I understand that cows are "cuter" than E. Coli and that they&#39;re so damn "sad" with those "big brown eyes", but your "achy breaky heart" is simply not a rational argument.

Society is a collection of codependent individuals that is required to serve its members. It has zero obligations beyond this.

Humans are bennefitted by a healthy ecosystem, they are also bennefited by minimizing animal suffering as it tends to distress us. But the elimination of all meat or all vivsective research would be unquestionably detrimental to human society and so cannot be undertaken.

Again, this is about objective rationality. Keep the sob stories on Oprah.


Isn’t it about time now that we have entered the 21st century that we should extend compassion to all living things?

No.

If you would like to prove otherwise, you need to provide rational argumentation.

[TomRK1089]

I have a brilliant idea. SInce the hippies want us to save the animals from testing, we&#39;ll do what LSD suggests, and test new drugs on the vegans&#33; :D

On the more serious side, I don&#39;t like the idea of causing unnecessary pain to an animal. If I see someone kicking a dog or something, I&#39;ll stop it.

But experimenting on animals to save human lives is not unnecessary.

If we can prove that animals such as parrots, primates or ceteans are sapient, then of course I would argue against using them in testing--it would be like using mentally deficient people in testing.

But for lower animals, we have no such evidence of higher intelligence.

[Janus]

And really, what&#39;s the alternative? Human testing&#33;?
That&#39;s usually the last step.


Human trials of an experimental vaccine against the H5N1 bird flu virus have begun in Belgium.

The jab is aimed at protecting against the virulent avian infection which has killed more than a hundred people worldwide.
The BBC was given exclusive access to the trial of 400 volunteers, designed to test what protection the vaccine will give.

Half on the trial will receive the prototype H5N1 vaccine, the other half will be given a dummy, or placebo. So why did the volunteers sign up?

Stefaan Vervaet said: "I guess it&#39;s a noble thing to do."

He has heard about the men in the UK who fell ill during a drug trial, but says it did not put him off taking part in this research.

"This is not a new drug so the risk is zero, or so they tell me."

Priming the immune system

All the volunteers are taking part for humanitarian reasons; just one admitted another motive.

Mireille Smets said she was being paid 300 euros. "If I&#39;m honest, it&#39;s the money and the experience," she said.

In time, we may all have reason to be grateful to these Belgian volunteers.
It is only by running experiments now that scientists can work out how best to create a vaccine once a pandemic has begun - a vaccine that could save millions of lives.

The vaccine works by using fragments of the H5 "spikes" on the virus surface and the N1 protein. These are inactivated in the vaccine.

The jab triggers the immune system to create antibodies, and these will attack the virus in case of a real infection.

But flu viruses mutate - they change. That is why people need a flu jab every winter.

So there is no guarantee this prototype vaccine will work when a pandemic finally happens.

And H5N1 is still a bird disease - the only humans who have caught it had direct contact with sick animals.

Strain uncertainty

We do not know if, or when, the virus might become an infectious human disease.

So, there is a question as to whether it is worth immunising whole populations with an experimental vaccine.
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the company producing this vaccine, says it is.

The company believes a chemical agent, or adjuvant, in the jab will help boost the body&#39;s immune response to H5N1.

Dr Ripley Ballou from GSK, said: "We believe that using an adjuvented vaccine strategy will allow us to prepare the immune system so that it will be able to respond and recognise a virus that may not be exactly the same as the virus in our vaccine.

"That gives us the ability to seriously propose pre-pandemic vaccination."

But the professor of immunology who is carrying out the GSK vaccine trial disagrees.

He says we simply do not know if the prototype will work against another flu strain, so it would be wrong to use it for mass vaccination now.

Professor Geert Leroux-Roels says: "That would not be the right strategy.

"The prototype vaccine we are evaluating may show some resemblance to the pandemic strain, but, since we do not know what the pandemic strain will be, it would be premature to vaccinate everyone with that vaccine."

Many governments are stockpiling small amounts of prototype H5N1 vaccines, but none is planning to use them until a pandemic starts.

This Belgian trial may encourage some countries to immunise sooner and offer the jab to everyone.

I think that we should be more worried concerning vivisections on humans rather than that done on animals.

[johnny limelight]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 10:48 PM


I think that we should be more worried concerning vivisections on humans rather than that done on animals.
errmmm no, people generally have the right to say no but animals are just tortured against their wishes.

[johnny limelight]

LSD, the charm less man I do hope that is your favourite recreational drug and not you initials because that would explain the need to highlight every other word in bold...some kind of touretts I do believe. For a grown up your use of smiles are quite charming but childish.

Had you got back from your very own seal cull along with all the other Canadian shithouses my Canadian friend?

Please explain what a sprout has anything to do with sentient animals; I am on tender hooks waiting for you to tell me what this pre pubescent school argument has to do with animal rights. Forget the LSD, try glue, you know not the fast bonding stuff that sticks fast but the other stuff that smell quite horrible and mess the airfix kits up.

Oh before I forget allow me to commend you for running other vegans off the board....very good and extremely brave of you. When the next round of ethnic cleansing and rape camps come along, may I put forward your name as camp comandante, the hat will fit perfectly.

Your argument of cancer cells and other micro germs are plain stupid, but then again stupidity is the last bastion of a person with a void between the ears.

. I have realised one thing reading your apologist twoddle and that is I have very little chance of the hope that you will see any compassion...well I wont keep you as you probably have some kittens eyes to sew shut.
All the best comrade.

[Dark Exodus]

All along this history of man is filled with cruelty and barbaric acts inflicted on mankind and the animal kingdom up to this very present day. Not to long ago we recently saw the gas chambers and the ethnic cleansing in the Yugoslavia.

And you would compare this to animal testing which has saved millions of lives, not to mention the many more it could save?

I would also stop flaming LSD just because he destroyed your argument.


Please explain what a sprout has anything to do with sentient animals

Can you explain what sentient animals have to do with sapient humans?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

LSD, the charm less man I do hope that is your favourite recreational drug and not you initials because that would explain the need to highlight every other word in bold...some kind of touretts I do believe. For a grown up your use of smiles are quite charming but childish.

Ad Hominem


Had you got back from your very own seal cull along with all the other Canadian shithouses my Canadian friend?

Ad Hominem


Please explain what a sprout has anything to do with sentient animals; I am on tender hooks waiting for you to tell me what this pre pubescent school argument has to do with animal rights.

He&#39;s already told it&#39;s arbitrary to make a distinction between certain lifeforms and not others.


Forget the LSD, try glue, you know not the fast bonding stuff that sticks fast but the other stuff that smell quite horrible and mess the airfix kits up.

Ad Hominem


Oh before I forget allow me to commend you for running other vegans off the board....very good and extremely brave of you.

Nonsense. LSD hasn&#39;t banned any vegans.


When the next round of ethnic cleansing and rape camps come along, may I put forward your name as camp comandante, the hat will fit perfectly.

Strawman fallacy.


Your argument of cancer cells and other micro germs are plain stupid, but then again stupidity is the last bastion of a person with a void between the ears.

Begging the question. Why is it stupid?


. I have realised one thing reading your apologist twoddle and that is I have very little chance of the hope that you will see any compassion...well I wont keep you as you probably have some kittens eyes to sew shut.

Appeal to emotion and another Ad Hominem.


All the best comrade.

Try using logical arguments next time.

[johnny limelight]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 02:26 PM


Nonsense. LSD hasn&#39;t banned any vegans.


where have i said that LSD has BANNED any vegans? i do believe i have&#39;t.

[LSD]

Oh before I forget allow me to commend you for running other vegans off the board....very good and extremely brave of you.

I didn&#39;t "run off" anyone. They chose to leave because they were unable to back up their ludcirous "arguments".

It would appear that you&#39;re about to do the same.

Good riddance&#33; :P


Please explain what a sprout has anything to do with sentient animals

First you explain what "sentience" has to do with this debate.

I&#39;m not the one trying to extend human rights to non-human lifeforms, you are.

You are simulaneously arguing, however, that while you oppose the line as it currently exists, some sort of line is nescessary. In other words, you acknowledge that every living thing cannot be afforded rights, but you still want to include non-human creatures.

Don&#39;t you see how ludicrous that is?

If the very rational dilineator of human societal membership doesn&#39;t cut it for you, what does? "Sentience"?

Why???


Your argument of cancer cells and other micro germs are plain stupid

I don&#39;t suppose you&#39;d care to state why?

Cancer cells and other "micro germs" are just as "alive" as kittens and cows. If you wish to contend that one group of living organisms is deserving of human societal rights but not another, the onus is on you to provide rational argumentation.


I have realised one thing reading your apologist twoddle and that is I have very little chance of the hope that you will see any compassion

I take that as a complement.

The ability to make decisions based on rational and objective analyses instead of emotionalism and pathos is one of the great achievements of human thought.

I am "compassionate" in many areas of my life. In fact, I happen to be quite sympathetic to animals and I certainly love my dog.

At the same time, however, I recognize that my "compassion" or any other emotions I might have are irrelevent to my reasoning process.

I have now engaged in this discussion dozens of times, Johnny, and I have still to see a good argument against animal testing. The simple truth is that for all the protesting and gruesome pictures, there is simpy no viable alternative.

Accordingly, I have no rational choice but to support it. And, really, neither do you.


LSD, the charm less man

I do hope that is your favourite recreational drug and not you initials because that would explain the need to highlight every other word in bold

some kind of touretts I do believe.

For a grown up your use of smiles are quite charming but childish.

Had you got back from your very own seal cull along with all the other Canadian shithouses my Canadian friend?

I am on tender hooks waiting for you to tell me what this pre pubescent school

Forget the LSD, try glue, you know not the fast bonding stuff that sticks fast but the other stuff that smell quite horrible and mess the airfix kits up.

When the next round of ethnic cleansing and rape camps come along, may I put forward your name as camp comandante, the hat will fit perfectly.

but then again stupidity is the last bastion of a person with a void between the ears.

..well I wont keep you as you probably have some kittens eyes to sew shut.

:blink:

Wow, that&#39;s certainly an impressively long list of irrelevent spam. Let&#39;s hope that you&#39;ve gotten it all off your chest, though, because any more of this will result in warning points.