'Animals Count'

[Vanguard1917]

Article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2492814,00.html)

A new party was launched this week in Britain: it's called 'Animals Count'. It's aim is to 'establish a voice for the animals'.

This isn't just a British phenomenon either. In the Netherlands the 'Party for the Animals' recently had two MPs elected.

Nothing could symbolise today's Western climate of misantrophy more than this statement by Animals Count founder, Jasmijn de Boo:

'First slaves were liberated. Then women and children. Now it is time to do the same for the animals.'

What explains the contemporary rise of 'animal liberation' politics?

[BreadBros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2006 03:51 pm
What explains the contemporary rise of 'animal liberation' politics?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=J6mxHOufRm8

Who wouldn't prefer to skate with Tyson the bulldog than say, talk to some Marxist-Leninists obsessed with the vanguard party and 1917?

[Jazzratt]

I love how the misanthrope the OP quoted thinks that women are liberated, what a fucking idiot.

Personally I think this kind of thing runs counter to our aims as leftists, but I don't hold as strong a loathing for them as our friend Vanguard.

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by the article
A sign of politics going barking mad this week was the launch of Animals Count, a party that aims to “establish a voice for the animals” and create “a world in which animals are not exploited” for food, consumer goods, sport or scientific research

A bunch of reactionary fucktards in other words.

They're hardly going to get a landslide victory in any elections. But the sad thing is that the 'animal liberation' ideas, just like so many other reactionary and sometimes outright lunatic approaches, do attract confused youths who sense that there is something wrong with society and want to better the world, but don't know where to direct their anger.

My personal opinion is that it's pointless and illogical to abstain from meat-- meat is a natural part of our food, and has as such most likely played a decisive role in our development to the fantastic species we are today. But if someone feels better being a vegetarian I'm completely fine with it as long as they aren't trying to make it mandatory for everyone.

But it's when people start talking about halting important research I draw the line, they are no comrades of mine.

Taking into consideration the urgent need for new medicines we have today as antibiotic resistance has become a problem and entire nations are on the brink of annihilation because of the HIV epidemic, etc, being against vivisection for those purposes is the same as in cold blood sentencing millions of human beings to death and suffering.

Until a better (and with better I mean more effective when it comes to getting results asap) one is discovered we have no option but to continue the form of research which has brought us this far -- vivisection.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
What explains the contemporary rise of 'animal liberation' politics?

Hmmm...changes in the supply or demand or labor required to produce meat and/or vegetables?

[La Comédie Noire]

We need to improve human society first before we even begin to get into that mess. One step at a time. In my opinion anyways.

[chimx]

But it's when people start talking about halting important research I draw the line, they are no comrades of mine.

Taking into consideration the urgent need for new medicines we have today as antibiotic resistance has become a problem and entire nations are on the brink of annihilation because of the HIV epidemic, etc, being against vivisection for those purposes is the same as in cold blood sentencing millions of human beings to death and suffering.

That's not true. John-Hopkins University (you know, the university associated with the #1 rated hospital in the US) has released plenty of reports saying that animal testing can and should be reduced by upwards of 80%. Everything else is pure unnecessary redundancy. Most of the vivisection animal rights advocates are denouncing are related to cosmetic tests.

As far as cause, getting back to the root question, how about the development in sciences? First Copernicus showed the idiocy of geocentricism, now evolutionary biologists can show us the idiocy of anthropocentricism. The view that humans are a strangely unique species, and the only ones warranting amiable treatment is a dying one--and rightfully so. Anthropocentric denouncements of care towards other species is as tiresome as the Papacy's denouncement of Galileo. More and more, scientists are dedicating research to how to reduce animal testing and vivisection, because the fact that humans took a different evolutionary path does not set them either higher or lower than that of other species.

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by Chimx
That's not true. John-Hopkins University (you know, the university associated with the #1 rated hospital in the US) has released plenty of reports saying that animal testing can and should be reduced by upwards of 80%. Everything else is pure unnecessary redundancy.

All that tells us is that there is a lot of unnecessary vivisection going on. It doesn't, however, negate the fact that some of it is very important.


Most of the vivisection animal rights advocates are denouncing are related to cosmetic tests.

And I agree that those aren't necessary. But then we do have the necessary vivisection and that's a completely different chapter. Are you for the abolishment of it even if that'd halt medical research, Chimx?


As far as cause, getting back to the root question, how about the development in sciences? First Copernicus showed the idiocy of geocentricism, now evolutionary biologists can show us the idiocy of anthropocentricism. The view that humans are a strangely unique species, and the only ones warranting amiable treatment is a dying one--and rightfully so. Anthropocentric denouncements of care towards other species is as tiresome as the Papacy's denouncement of Galileo. More and more, scientists are dedicating research to how to reduce animal testing and vivisection, because the fact that humans took a different evolutionary path does not set them either higher or lower than that of other species.

While we should for our own sake be careful about disrupting the balance of nature by being ignorant of species dying out (as that can have wide consequences), there is no justification for letting humans die in order to save animal lives.

It's great that we try to discover other forms of research. But, again, until we have something equally or more effective than vivisection, that is what we have to use, period.

It is your approach, thinking about other species before your own, that is the 'unnatural' one. Good luck explaining it to a bunch of lions when they eat you lioncentricly. :lol:

Anthropocentrism is simply the logical and yeah, 'natural' way to go, and it is not the same as ignorance -- we are dependant of the environment and must therefore not disrupt it without thinking about the consequences. But we should mold it carefully to become more enjoyable for our species.

We are strangely unique, as in 'special' -- to ourselves.

[harris0]

I live on a farm...where we eat our own meat. But how meat is raised on factory farms is truly horrific. Do a little research on it before you call it "reactionary", etc. Factory farming should be outlawed in my opinion.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 04:04 pm
I live on a farm...where we eat our own meat. But how meat is raised on factory farms is truly horrific. Do a little research on it before you call it "reactionary", etc. Factory farming should be outlawed in my opinion.
The only problem I have with factory farms is that they are too dirty, otherwise it's a fairly good idea as a way of get a lot of meat effeciantly. Second only to synthesising it in terms of effeciancy. Until they can make the environments the animals are kept in cleaner though I will oppose them.

[Sentinel]

I live on a farm...where we eat our own meat. But how meat is raised on factory farms is truly horrific. Do a little research on it before you call it "reactionary", etc. Factory farming should be outlawed in my opinion.

Are you talking to me? Where did I state my position on how farming should be practised and the animals treated?

What I said was that the 'animal liberation' agenda is reactionary because we need animals for scientific research, and that people should be allowed to eat meat if they choose to.

Obviously unnecessary suffering of animals should be minimised, and exists mostly because of the capitalist system in the first place, which I oppose as a communist.. :rolleyes:

[RedLenin]

I definitely agree that the Animal Liberation movement is reactionary. They are focusing the totality of their efforts on a symptom of capitalism, rather than trying to cure the disease. I used to be an Animal Liberationist myself, so I can see their point of view. How animals are treated today is absolutely horrific, but to say that Humans are morally equal to animals is just stupid. According to Animal Liberation logic, you would be more moral for saving two rats from a burning building as opposed to one human. So animal liberation, as far as I can tell, is not a leftist issue.

Also, vivisection is absolutely horrific. Obviously it should be banned for all cosmetic testing. However it is true that some vivisection can help with medical research, which can help human beings. In that case, it is a necessary evil. However, I think as time goes on new methods will develope for medical testing and vivisection will no longer be necessary. So I am for the eventual abolition of vivisection.

As far as eating meat is concerned, I personally don't. Ive been a vegan for about a year. It is true that how you eat is not going to change anything, but I look at my choice kind of like a boycott. Much like someone may choose to boycott Nike or Coca-Cola for their nefarious practices, I choose to boycott the capitalist animal agriculture industry. I also do it for health reasons. And hopefully soon we can replace normal meat with laboratory meat. In the future I expect that humans will have no need to use animals for any purpose at all.

[Dimentio]

Moral and ethics is not a natural law, otherwise, nothing deemed immoral could possible happen. Ethics are just important in two aspects, the first one is to protect life and the second is to see to that we have a functioning society which ensures the first aspect.

[chimx]

Originally posted by Chimx
That's not true. John-Hopkins University (you know, the university associated with the #1 rated hospital in the US) has released plenty of reports saying that animal testing can and should be reduced by upwards of 80%. Everything else is pure unnecessary redundancy.

All that tells us is that there is a lot of unnecessary vivisection going on. It doesn't, however, negate the fact that some of it is very important.

Maybe, but the members of this forum, "technocrats" and what-have-you, seem to have a tendency of advocating animal testing and vivisection in excess of what actual scientists desire. I would argue that it is this kind of anthropocentric attitude that is what is really reactionary and totally and completely out of sync with the science community.

Some of it is important research. I'm all for finding an HIV vaccine, or curing cancer, but FDA testing demands are over kill, as many in the scientific community agree. Personally I loathe the reactionary leftists who share an opinion with Descartes, that animals are nothing more than automaton because the lack a soul (or humanness for all you materialists).

It is a reactionary view. It is reactionary to the scientific community which is seeking more humane ways of dealing with sentient creatures.




Most of the vivisection animal rights advocates are denouncing are related to cosmetic tests.

And I agree that those aren't necessary. But then we do have the necessary vivisection and that's a completely different chapter. Are you for the abolishment of it even if that'd halt medical research, Chimx?

It is entirely circumstantial. I am certainly an advocate of the "three R's" suggested by the John Hopkins School of Public Health (link (http://altweb.jhsph.edu/publications/humane_exp/het-toc.htm)): reduce animal usage (by at least 80%), refine techniques to eliminate, or at the very least, minimize pain, and replace the use of animals with non-animal methods whenever possible.

Again, I am opposed to cosmetic testing, as well as painful testing for cures to non-life threatening ailments (for example, the video I posted of vivisection being done to a monkey's exposed brain so that humans could operate computers through thought instead of keyboards or voice recognition). Diseases that actually effect large amounts of a population, such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, etc., I am alright with, provided they at least adhere to the "three R" model.

Finding cures for insignificant diseases like the flesh eating disease that only effect and extreme minority of the population I am opposed to. To answer the question posed by someone on this forum in a similar thread: Would I killed a million puppies to save 1 human life? No. Nor do I think mosts scientists would either. Anyone that would say "yes" to such a question is reactionary, anthropocentric, and an embarrassment to the established scientific community.



As far as cause, getting back to the root question, how about the development in sciences? First Copernicus showed the idiocy of geocentricism, now evolutionary biologists can show us the idiocy of anthropocentricism. The view that humans are a strangely unique species, and the only ones warranting amiable treatment is a dying one--and rightfully so. Anthropocentric denouncements of care towards other species is as tiresome as the Papacy's denouncement of Galileo. More and more, scientists are dedicating research to how to reduce animal testing and vivisection, because the fact that humans took a different evolutionary path does not set them either higher or lower than that of other species.

While we should for our own sake be careful about disrupting the balance of nature by being ignorant of species dying out (as that can have wide consequences), there is no justification for letting humans die in order to save animal lives.

It's great that we try to discover other forms of research. But, again, until we have something equally or more effective than vivisection, that is what we have to use, period.

It is your approach, thinking about other species before your own, that is the 'unnatural' one. Good luck explaining it to a bunch of lions when they eat you lioncentricly. :lol:

Anthropocentrism is simply the logical and yeah, 'natural' way to go, and it is not the same as ignorance -- we are dependant of the environment and must therefore not disrupt it without thinking about the consequences. But we should mold it carefully to become more enjoyable for our species.

We are strangely unique, as in 'special' -- to ourselves.

I completely disagree with everything you said in these paragraphs. Luckily for me, most people actually conducting scientific experiments are slowly moving away from an anthropocentric paradigm. More and more are biologists cautioning that experiments should be conducted in a humane manner, with as little biological suffering as possible.



How amusing it is that technocrats and transhumanists are always the ones so out of touch with real scientific development, aligning themselves with the scientific Right.

[Vanguard1917]

The author of the article i posted argues that:

'human emancipation and animal liberation are contradictory, not complementary. Intensive farming and animal research have helped to give us longer, healthier lives. And using animals for food, consumer goods, entertainment and sport helps to make life worthwhile. A world without the “exploitation of animals” would be unfit for human habitation.'

What do we think about this argument? Surely it is a matter of common sense that human emancipation and animal liberation are contradictory rather than complementary?

[ichneumon]

And using animals for food, consumer goods, entertainment and sport helps to make life worthwhile. A world without the “exploitation of animals” would be unfit for human habitation.'

i don't need or want any of those things - this person is a junkie, his stash is threatened, so he screams bloody blue murder. typical.

"using the poor to produce luxury goods makes life worthwhile. a world without the "exploitation of the masses" would be unfit for human habitation".

animal based agriculture is scientifically proven to be ineffficient. the world can support half again as many vegetarians as ominivores. by condoning a society that eats meat in an overpopulated world, you are dooming billions of people to starvation.

[Vanguard1917]

"using the poor to produce luxury goods makes life worthwhile. a world without the "exploitation of the masses" would be unfit for human habitation".

So you're equating animals with humans?


animal based agriculture is scientifically proven to be ineffficient.

No it isn't.


the world can support half again as many vegetarians as ominivores. by condoning a society that eats meat in an overpopulated world, you are dooming billions of people to starvation.

What are you talking about? I think your idiocy is enough proof of the frightening consequences of protein deficiency.

'Overpopulated world'? That's one of the foremost reactionary political positions of our times. And it comes in green packaging.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 07:55 pm
"using the poor to produce luxury goods makes life worthwhile. a world without the "exploitation of the masses" would be unfit for human habitation".
:rolleyes: Another one of those stupid, vacuos twats that chooses to argue by changing an argument to something they seem to believe is analogous but is obviously not. Until you can illustrate exactly how animals are comparable to the working class ( a view which I find demeans the working class, dooming them to be lumped as a seperate species.).


animal based agriculture is scientifically proven to be ineffficient. the world can support half again as many vegetarians as ominivores. by condoning a society that eats meat in an overpopulated world, you are dooming billions of people to starvation. Considering we actually produce enough food to feed a population larger than that currently on earth I think you're barking up the wrong tree. It's capitalism you want to oppose not "harming those poor widdle members of non-human, non-sapient species."

[ichneumon]

No it isn't.

do you want references? you wouldn't believe them.

we produce lots of food using nonsustainable technology and huge amounts of petroleum. in the range of 100lbs of fertilizer per acre of HAY.


In line with recent studies (19, 20), we estimate that with the world population at 5.5 billion, food production is adequate to feed 7 billion people a vegetarian diet, with ideal distribution and no grain fed to livestock. Yet possibly as many as two billion people are now living in poverty (V. Abernathy, pers. comm.), and over I billion in "utter poverty" live with hunger (7, 19-23). Inadequate distribution of food is a substantial contributing factor to this current situation

from Constraints on Global Food Supply (http://dieoff.org/page36.htm)

the point of the analogy is the this person is whining about *luxuries* making his life "worth living". let him try living by working 16hrs a day a gunpoint for a bowl of rice. or watching his children die from a disease that costs 50 cents to cure.

[harris0]

I'm no follower of the Pete Singer "Animal Liberation" line that animals and humans are moral equivalents. That's ridiculous.

But it's a scientific fact that most animals are PHYSICALLY (but not mentally of course) capable of suffering just as much as people are. And I think it's basic morality to avoid unnecessary suffering. For that reason I think factory farming is immoral. That's my opinion.

[Vanguard1917]

do you want references? you wouldn't believe them.

No i wouldn't, for the sake of science.


the point of the analogy is the this person is whining about *luxuries* making his life "worth living". let him try living by working 16hrs a day a gunpoint for a bowl of rice. or watching his children die from a disease that costs 50 cents to cure.

What has that got to do with this? Pull yourself together.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 09:03 pm
the point of the analogy is the this person is whining about *luxuries* making his life "worth living". let him try living by working 16hrs a day a gunpoint for a bowl of rice. or watching his children die from a disease that costs 50 cents to cure.
So you propose a form of communism whereby no one has any luxuries? Will fun be abolished too? Secondly it is different, because you are trying to compare the suffering of humans with that of animals, as if the two wer comparable.

As for the disease that costs 50 cents to cure, I'm sure you wouldn't mind watching somone die if the alternative would be to use a cure that was tested on animals, right?

[harris0]

Guys...don't let the animal rights extremists distract you from an anti-factory farming position which is very reasonable, and morally correct in my opinion.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 09:17 pm
Guys...don't let the animal rights extremists distract you from an anti-factory farming position which is very reasonable, and morally correct in my opinion.
I cna see the logic behind not wanting to make animals suffer unessecarily, but a factory farm, redisgned, could easily feed more people than a field.

[ichneumon]

No i wouldn't, for the sake of science.

you don't believe references for the sake of science? wtf?

actually, i work in a lab that does animal testing, just FYI. we study the ecology of infectious diseases and we have to have animal models.

luxuries are fine - *after* everyone on earth has enough food, shelter and healthcare. eating meat is a luxury - you won't die without it, ergo, it's a luxury. it's no different from driving an SUV or wearing diamonds.

personally, i'd see socialism producing necessities, and let the free market deal with luxuries, so long as it's not enviromental or socially destructive. but that's a LONG time in the future and we have many more serious problems now.



I cna see the logic behind not wanting to make animals suffer unessecarily, but a factory farm, redisgned, could easily feed more people than a field.

what do those animals eat? air? where does their food come from?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 10:15 pm
luxuries are fine - *after* everyone on earth has enough food, shelter and healthcare. eating meat is a luxury - you won't die without it, ergo, it's a luxury. it's no different from driving an SUV or wearing diamonds.
It's entirely possible to live without a house - is that a luxury?



personally, i'd see socialism producing necessities, and let the free market deal with luxuries, so long as it's not enviromental or socially destructive. but that's a LONG time in the future and we have many more serious problems now. What do you mean 'let the free market deal with the luxuries", do you support a free market?




I cna see the logic behind not wanting to make animals suffer unessecarily, but a factory farm, redisgned, could easily feed more people than a field.

what do those animals eat? air? where does their food come from? The field that would have at one time been set aside for just a small herd, covered in hydroponics.

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by Chimx
It is entirely circumstantial. I am certainly an advocate of the "three R's" suggested by the John Hopkins School of Public Health (link): reduce animal usage (by at least 80%), refine techniques to eliminate, or at the very least, minimize pain, and replace the use of animals with non-animal methods whenever possible.

All I have to say to this is why not, as long as progress continues unhindered.


as well as painful testing for cures to non-life threatening ailments (for example, the video I posted of vivisection being done to a monkey's exposed brain so that humans could operate computers through thought instead of keyboards or voice recognition).

Haven't seen that video, but I have to say I'm all for that experiment as what it was for is simply a too important (and awesome!) thing not to develop. To fully benefit from technology we must become one with it, so this sort of research is important. But the monkeys ability to feel pain should be numbed if only possible.

Basically my position is that if vivisection can be avoided (without resorting into human testing) it should, as long as we can get the same results, and when it's used we should avoid causing pain.


Finding cures for insignificant diseases like the flesh eating disease that only effect and extreme minority of the population I am opposed to.

Here we disagree. If there's one single human being suffering somewhere, we should use the fastest methods available. And in that case, if it's painful to animals, tough shit.


I completely disagree with everything you said in these paragraphs. Luckily for me, most people actually conducting scientific experiments are slowly moving away from an anthropocentric paradigm. More and more are biologists cautioning that experiments should be conducted in a humane manner, with as little biological suffering as possible.

Slowly moving away, hmm..

If by anthropocentric you mean being an ignorant, shortsighted fool who doesn't give a shit about the environment or the animals and gets a sadistic satisfaction from causing unnecessary pain to the latter, let's hope so. It's just that capitalism is the perfect system for people like that.

But if you mean someone who fights against human suffering and for human progress with any means possible, caring for the environment and the nonhuman species for their actual value for us and not for emotional reasons, I'm happy you're wrong. We need results, and will get them. There will always be serious scientists who would never put the wellbeing of animals above that of humans.

And in a communist society which encourages creativity and elevates the consciousness and enlightenment of everyone equally, such people will pop up like mushrooms after rain! :)

[ichneumon]

there is a science to agriculture and food production. there are literally thousands of studies showing how meat production is inefficient compared to grain production. it's inherent in the thermodynamics of the system. it's been proven over and over again, in theory and in trial. nevertheless, people who want to eat meat refuse to believe it. this has been hashed out over and over again in this forum, and nothing changes. if you'd like to start *yet another* thread on the efficiency of different types of agriculture, feel free. but if you don't have stone cold peer reviewed references, don't bother.

and, fyi, my political opinions do not affect the reality of the objective universe. unfortunate, but true. :o

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 12:48 am
and, fyi, my political opinions do not affect the reality of the objective universe. unfortunate, but true. :o
I was asking more out of curiosity. So do you believe in the free market, yes or no - then you can go back to the argument at hand.

[Pow R. Toc H.]

I dont consider a chicken or a rat my equal, therefore I would never ever ever fight for the rights of animal. But if anybody does consider a chicken or a rat there equal good for them for sticking up for them. I personally will continue to eat all the fuckin chicken i can and support animal testing for diseases like HIV and Cancer.

[ichneumon]

once we have a sustainable society, if free markets are good and helpful, then fine - i believe in whatever gets to sustainability, given that social justice is an inherent part of that same goal. hungry people can't be expected to care about the distant future.

[Bretty123]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 07:32 pm
The author of the article i posted argues that:

'human emancipation and animal liberation are contradictory, not complementary. Intensive farming and animal research have helped to give us longer, healthier lives. And using animals for food, consumer goods, entertainment and sport helps to make life worthwhile. A world without the “exploitation of animals” would be unfit for human habitation.'

What do we think about this argument? Surely it is a matter of common sense that human emancipation and animal liberation are contradictory rather than complementary?
Factory farming techniques hinder both human and animal development in the long run due to detrimental environmental and economic backlash.

Using animals for food is one argument but when the author comments on entertainment and sports its appealing to private preference.

Personally I lost the entertainment factor in the circus, rodeo, etc. when I realized that the animals don't actually ENJOY doing what they do and it's just bad humor and on a very high level of anthropocentric domination and humiliation. Your literally watching cruel and unusual treatment, there is a law for this - cruel and unusual treatment.

So I won't accept the fact that we need to dominate other animals for our livelihood, it's downright absurd.

As far as Sentinel's posts are concerned, I think that if you haven't already you should read into the factory farming practice and some of the statistics on the matter but vivisection is a very controversial topic and all I can say for myself on that note is that it should be reduced by a huge percentage.

Because I refuse to look at this as black and white I'll suggest to you all one other angle of vivisection and it's inefficiency. What about all the money used in that useless or almost useless 80%? It would be better used elsewhere and ultimately the whole practice has to be reassessed. One experiment that comes to mind was one where a monkeys eyes were sewn shut since childbirth to see what it would be like for a CHILD in developmental stages.

This makes no sense at all, they test on monkeys to find results about humans? It's absurd and money is going to pay for this stuff! I would suggest this type of experimentation is counter revolutionary and anything but efficiently progressive.

[Sentinel]

As far as Sentinel's posts are concerned, I think that if you haven't already you should read into the factory farming practice and some of the statistics on the matter but vivisection is a very controversial topic and all I can say for myself on that note is that it should be reduced by a huge percentage.

As far as I'm aware, I still haven't said jack shit about my position on factory farming in this thread. But since people seem curious I'll shed some light:

I'm for a humane treatment of animals whenever that only is possible, and I'm certain that post revolution when profits of capitalists aren't an issue anymore, things will change for the better.

And as not only an 'anthropocentric' but also a person who relies on facts and evidence, I know for instance that south american beef is very sought after because of it's high quality, which is to a large degree a result of the animals strolling free and eating their natural fodder instead of substitutes. No risk for mad cow disease there! :)


This makes no sense at all, they test on monkeys to find results about humans? It's absurd and money is going to pay for this stuff! I would suggest this type of experimentation is counter revolutionary and anything but efficiently progressive.

You don't think the scientists had thought about the fact that there are differences between humans and monkeys, and taken it into consideration? :o

Man, will they be dissapointed should you call them and tell them how stupid they have been! I can imagine them slapping their foreheads and cursing.. :rolleyes:

Seriously, the unnecessary vivisection is that to test new lipsticks and so on. Not the medical research, which must and will continue, as rational human beings tend to get to make these decisions in society.

[Bretty123]

You don't think the scientists had thought about the fact that there are differences between humans and monkeys, and taken it into consideration? ohmy.gif

Man, will they be dissapointed should you call them and tell them how stupid they have been! I can imagine them slapping their foreheads and cursing.. rolleyes.gif

Seriously, the unnecessary vivisection is that to test new lipsticks and so on. Not the medical research, which must and will continue, as rational human beings tend to get to make these decisions in society.

You didn't bring anything new to the discussion by mocking me. Please tell me what's wrong with pointing out the problems with the vivisection?

There is an obvious difference between the monkey and a human child and yet this type of experimentation is being funded. It's definitely cruel and unusual treatment.

I never said they didn't know the difference between the species yet you mock me on this point anyways.

Would you agree that this experiment takes a back seat to other pressing matters that you have advocated in your previous posts?

If so, why do you mock me on my point? As I am expressing a close opinion to that of yours.

Further I propose to you all this question: If the experiment is so important to the development and betterment of human society then why not use a real human child?

I'm not advocating this position yet if the results are so important then why do we as a society not allow this for much more accurate results? e.g. the effect on language etc.

P.S. Save the mockery and sarcasm for another messageboard, I'm here for discussion.

[Sentinel]

You didn't bring anything new to the discussion by mocking me.

Bretty, you shouldn't get offended that easily, 'the mockery' was quite harmless in my opinion. But I do apologise for being rude if it makes you feel better. I do think, however, that I brought something new into the discussion, namely I refuted your argument, which is one that comes up quite often in these debates btw.

The scientists obviously know what they are doing, what the differences between humans and animals are, and how they should be taken into consideration. The track record of astonishing medical breakthroughs accomplished with vivisection tells us that.


I never said they didn't know the difference between the species yet you mock me on this point anyways.

Well that's how it sounded.. But what did you mean then? If they knew that the differences mattered to the degree the test was useless, they wouldn't have done it. But propably they would actually have to do it on a monkey and compare with humans to come in such conclusion in the first place, considering how closely related humans and monkeys are after all.


Would you agree that this experiment takes a back seat to other pressing matters that you have advocated in your previous posts?

HIV etc? It would seem so, but that would again depend on the purposes they wanted to test how it would be for a human child. If it had even remotely to do with curing blindness or helping blind people out, it was justified.


Further I propose to you all this question: If the experiment is so important to the development and betterment of human society then why not use a real human child?

I'm not advocating this position yet if the results are so important then why do we as a society not allow this for much more accurate results? e.g. the effect on language etc.

Testing on humans is out of question of course. It would be quite alien to any human being in his/her senses to do such a thing, one would have to be a psychopath. We do feel a 'natural' bond to other members of our species, especially children. That's how a healthy human brain works. Also, it's in our interests to reinforce the equality and sense of togetherness in order to reach our full potential. Such experiments would work against that goal.

Just like other flock species, we benefit of sticking together and taking care of each other.

[Bretty123]

I just dislike people's rudeness that is based solely on their anonymity on the internet. And mockery isn't a refutation. You completely ignored my point about the inefficiency of money and why it isn't being used for greater priorities [which is why I made the point initially]


However many factors are left out by not using a human subject when looking for information useful for human betterment. But I agree it would first require an assessment of the objectives of the experiment.

For the most part I would go as far to say that there needs to be a huge decrease in experimenting on animals, and a greater and closer assessment of what is actually trying to be proven.

In the case of this monkey who has his eyes sewn shut [ he was rescued by the ALF thankfully in my opinion] we should ask the monkeys if they'd like to know the scientific findings [joking...partially].

Otherwise I view it as cruel and unnecessary torture.

As far as human testing goes, it would also depend on who the subject is i.e. a prison inmate etc. and what the objectives are.

Yes I'm comparing animals to humans but not as equals. The similarity in both situations is simply whether it is unnecessary experimentation or not.

[Sentinel]

I just dislike people's rudeness that is based solely on their anonymity on the internet.

Funny, because I love it! I think it can make people open themselves up more than they would face to face. Perhaps we just are different kind of persons, let's leave that at that -- we might interpret things differently but we'll learn from our discussions, right? And that's the point of this place. RevLeft -- Learn by rudeness (=honestness)! :D

And welcome to the Science forum btw, I'm the host tonight! :lol:

.... ;)


You completely ignored my point about the inefficiency of money and why it isn't being used for greater priorities [which is why I made the point initially]

That was only because I agreed with you on that. It's generally when people disagree, they usually speak out. :(


In the case of this monkey who has his eyes sewn shut [ he was rescued by the ALF thankfully in my opinion] we should ask the monkeys if they'd like to know the scientific findings [joking...partially].
Well monkeys actually are so close to human beings, they move something inside me too. To be honest I'm not sure we should experiment on those particular species, because they're so close to us..

Similarly, Whales & dolphins who physically aren't that close to us reach (almost, lol) similar intellingence levels, and I'm sort of reluctant to harming them either.

Those feelings are due to the fact that we humans see intelligence as a value, which I'd say is a quite positive trait in a species! :)

But the nice thing is that we have shittier species to experiment on, like banana flies, frogs or rats for instance. And the scientists will know the differences between us and those, before they rely on any experiments on them! ;)