terrorizing people to save animals who save people...

Discussion in 'Fred's House of Pancakes' started by galaxee, Aug 5, 2008.

  1. galaxee

    galaxee mostly benevolent

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    9,810
    437
    0
    Location:
    MD
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    apparently, to some, it's ok to try to kill people who work to improve the lives of others through animal research. because animal research is wrong, no matter how much human suffering these noble creatures have prevented through their sacrifices for research. and people who work with animals should be punished by terrorist attacks.
    :mad:

    read the rest at FBI investigates new attacks on Calif. scientists: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance

    this statement from ALF spokesperson just infuriates me:
    i feel nothing but disgust over this incident. if only these people had as much respect for human lives, for people and their families, as they did for the animals. animal research is a tough issue, and nobody really wants to hurt another creature, even a rat. except these people. the ALF spokesman has actually come out and advocated violence against animal researchers. ADVOCATED! we researchers take every step possible to minimize pain and suffering, ALF people are taking steps to cause it.

    that's just what we need in this world. more reasons to kill each other.
     
  2. F8L

    F8L Protecting Habitat & AG Lands

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    19,011
    4,064
    50
    Location:
    Grass Valley, CA.
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    Wth is wrong with people???
     
  3. Godiva

    Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    10,339
    14
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    I've always considered the life of a person more valuable than the life of an animal. I love my dog. I love animals. But I think a person trumps an animal.

    I DO NOT believe scientists are sadistic. I do not believe they mistreat their animals or take pleasure making them suffer. I believe they act as humanely as possible to save human life.

    Those that take insulin or wear contact lenses or have pacemakers should thank them and the animals that made it possible. I'm sure Galaxee could add to that list.

    PETA are beyond fruitcakes. Nutso. Whacko. <insert appropriate insanity nomenclature here.>

    Whatever PETA says I automatically assume to be a a lie and take the opposite stance.

    PETA kills.

    "When People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) Vice President Bruce Freidrich famously told a convention of animal rights activists that “blowing stuff up and smashing windows [is] a great way to bring about animal liberation,” and added “Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it,” it turns out he was very well plugged in to the movement. This morning, we imagine PETA’s number-two is directing his Hallelujahs toward Santa Cruz, California. That’s where two biomedical researchers were the victims of premeditated animal-rights firebombs over the weekend. In one attack, a university researcher’s family (including two small children) narrowly escaped a smoke-filled home through a second-story window after their home was firebombed. The other arson attack engulfed a scientist’s car on the campus of U.C. Santa Cruz. Just last week a series of “wanted” posters surfaced in Santa Cruz featuring the names, photos, phone numbers, and home addresses of researchers whose work involves the use of animals. They read, in part: “eware; we know where you live; we know where you work; we will never back down.”
    In this morning’s San Jose Mercury News, long-time animal-rights violence promoter Jerry Vlasak called the arson attacks “necessary” to bring about the goals of his movement. Vlasak is best known for openly advocating the “political assassination” of medical researchers in 2003, while a spokesman for the PETA-affiliated Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM). “For 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives,” Vlasak said, “we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human lives.” Luckily, no one perished in Saturday’s vicious attacks. But we’re chalking that up to luck, not design.
    It’s important to remember that the animal rights movement is one big happy family. Its leaders have decided that the life of a lab rat is so important that human suffering -- whether from AIDS, breast cancer, leukemia, tuberculosis, or any other disease -- simply isn’t reason enough to justify the forward march of science. And these activists who want legal standing for lab rats are the very same people who want “rights” for cows, chickens, and pigs."
     
  4. Neicy

    Neicy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    825
    5
    0
    Location:
    Wakefield, MA.
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius
    Model:
    Three
    Two wrongs don't make a right. A friend of mine has a former research cat that someone apparently had "freed". She would have starved to death if she was not found in time. Sugar will never be normal but will always be loved as long as she lives. We had no idea why she behaved as she did until the vet found the tattoo hidden beneath her fur. I hope someday there will be a better way.
     
  5. galaxee

    galaxee mostly benevolent

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    9,810
    437
    0
    Location:
    MD
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    i sincerely hope that this attack is used to the detriment of groups who are involved. if you can justify killing people because of what they do for a living, something is seriously wrong.
     
  6. SSimon

    SSimon Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    1,410
    19
    0
    Location:
    N/W of Chicago
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    There is tremendous irony that you seek to save some of these terrorists lives with your work, yet they would find it fitting to kill you.

    Not that I'm an advocate of animal testing. I've just found a more peaceful (and probably effective) means of making my position known.
     
  7. KK6PD

    KK6PD _ . _ . / _ _ . _

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    4,003
    934
    118
    Location:
    Los Angeles Foothills
    Vehicle:
    Other Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    People Eating Tasty Animals

    I've heard of them, some sort of food group, right???



     
  8. eagle33199

    eagle33199 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    5,122
    268
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Vehicle:
    2015 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Two
    While i in no way agree with their methods, there are limited cases where i do agree with the philosophy against animal testing. In general, i think i draw the line between cosmetic, optional products (make up, shampoo, other such chemicals) and medical treatments. My company does do some limited animal testing, and i know we go out of our way to ensure the animal is comfortable through the entire process. And i also know that this animal testing is the only reason we have our products on the market, saving lives today.
     
  9. SSimon

    SSimon Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    1,410
    19
    0
    Location:
    N/W of Chicago
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    For cosmetics, et al, I never purchase from a company that tests on animals as there is no reason that these companies should still be employing these methods when there are clear alternatives.

    I'm unclear about drugs. Aren't there now many alternatives for the testing of pharmaceuticals, such as in vitro testing, and that drug companies don't employ these new methods due to increased cost?
     
  10. Godiva

    Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    10,339
    14
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Personally, I don't want to use an eyeliner or mascara that might cause me to go blind.

    Anyone against testing for drugs doesn't remember Tholidomide.
     
  11. SSimon

    SSimon Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    1,410
    19
    0
    Location:
    N/W of Chicago
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    From all the research I've done on the topic, animal testing doesn't have to be performed on cosmetics, household cleaning products, etc., in order to ensure safety. A lot of cosmetic companies no longer test on animals to ensure safety and I'm sure they wouldn't forgo this if there were any liability concerns.

    There are now means other than the maiming of animals to ensure that end goal. It took a few progressive companies to set the stage for this and that's why I make sure I support them with my money. Thankfully we now have the option of choosing not to live at the expense of other living beings.
     
  12. Trollbait

    Trollbait It's a D&D thing

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    16,159
    7,512
    0
    Location:
    eastern Pennsylvania
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Cosmetic companies that don't do testing are either sticking to ingredients that have aready been tested, or are outsourcing their testing. It's most likely the former. Animal testing is expensive. When I was in school, a generic lab mouse started at $10, and prices climbed from there.
     
  13. galaxee

    galaxee mostly benevolent

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    9,810
    437
    0
    Location:
    MD
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    well, i think we should clarify animal research vs animal testing...

    there is no way around use of an animal model for some research applications. i can't use a cell culture model for studying development of the brain, for example. the researcher whose house was firebombed studied the development of the eye. again, there is no less-complex model for eye development and an animal model is needed. the use of each animal has to be justified to an outside committee, along with every method we plan to use.

    you can't really study systemic drug toxicity without an animal model either. there is no artificial brain, liver, etc model that will tell you how a given drug will affect each organ system. we know that animal models don't translate perfectly to humans, but if we can eliminate drugs based on adverse animal effects before causing serious harm to humans (ie, people with productive lives, families to support, etc) then those animals have done very much for people. i would sooner give large doses of a drug to a lab rat, find out that it causes cancer, and use that result to stop the development process of the drug rather than find out it's carcinogenic or teratogenic after 5 years of the drug being on the market because an insufficient test was used. the intact body is too complex for some of the more simplistic models like cell culture, and when people's lives are at stake it is very important to *not* screw them up while trying to help them.

    i personally don't care for the use of animal testing for consumer products. yes, i would rather the product be tested on a lab animal than sustain a serious injury myself and substantial medical bills from an untested product. but i would prefer to stick with products with a record of safety that do not need proving or testing.
     
  14. Testm0nkey

    Testm0nkey New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2008
    44
    0
    0
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Vehicle:
    2008 Prius
    In the lab I worked in post-grad the use of the lab animals was totally and completely pointless. Could have easily done the study with a human population and not run into any ethical dilemmas. I got the idea a lot of animal testing/research is "pointless" - just from my scope of experience and the other labs we worked with doing the same thing to their animals. That is what I disagree with and why I left that lab for another.

    Is trying to blow up a family wrong? Of course

    But the crazzies are right about one thing - there is a problem (in my opinion)
     
  15. SSimon

    SSimon Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    1,410
    19
    0
    Location:
    N/W of Chicago
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    That's where my problems lie. When the use of animals is senseless and without reason or necessity I surely will not support it. Especially if the end product is for frivolity (which I label cosmetics). I don't need to be beautified at the expense of another living being. I'll do without.
     
  16. Sufferin' Prius Envy

    Sufferin' Prius Envy Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    3,998
    15
    0
    Location:
    USA
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    In general, or for use in lab testing? :p
     
  17. Godiva

    Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    10,339
    14
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius

    Are contact lenses frivolous? I think so. You can just wear glasses. But try to get people to give up their contact lenses. They were animal tested.

    There are people on insulin pumps now that were tested on animals. There's nothing frivolous about diabetes. But some might think hey, why not use a syringe?

    Is there unnecesary or frivolous use of animals? Yes. Is there some mistreatment or intentional cruelty? I'll bet there is but it is rare.

    There are people that are intentional cruel to other people for frivolous reasons....such as ego or entertainment. I am more concerned about them.
     
  18. eagle33199

    eagle33199 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    5,122
    268
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Vehicle:
    2015 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Two
    The difference between the items you pointed out, Godiva, and what i consider frivolous, really comes down to quality of life measurements. An insulin pump could be considered a quality of life improvement for individuals. True, it's not necessary because needles could do the job too, but it is much more than a cosmetic change. In a similar, though lessened manner, contacts could be seen as a quality of life improvement for some. There are professions out there where glasses could get in the way or seriously hinder advancement - a problem that contacts help solve. Now, i know that doesn't apply to everyone, or even a majority of contact users, but it is something to consider.

    Many medical products out there could be seen as "frivolous" to some people, but to people who actually use them these products turn into quality of life improvements. You might have a person with Bradycardia that could live a normal lifespan as they are... but throw in a pacemaker and their quality of life will improve. before, they would get winded walking to the mailbox or climbing a set of stairs... afterwards, they can do those activities just fine.

    What about Liposuction? Many, many people see that as a purely cosmetic procedure designed to allow people to become supermodel thin, but at the same time such a procedure can drastically improve the life of an individual genetically disposed towards obesity.

    So i guess what i'm saying is that not everything is cut and dry - for one individual something might be a cosmetic improvement (like contacts of Liposuction), but for another it might be a quality of life improvement, and i don't think we should condemn animal testing for those.
     
  19. SSimon

    SSimon Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    1,410
    19
    0
    Location:
    N/W of Chicago
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    [FONT=verdana,geneva][/FONT][FONT=verdana,geneva]Galaxee can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe there are still a lot of companies that continue to test on animals when clear alternatives exist. At least that's how I interpreted her post when she defined a need for animals so long as systemic effects are being studied. I think [/FONT][FONT=verdana,geneva]lotions, cosmetics, household cleaners and the like [/FONT][FONT=verdana,geneva]can be tested without the use of animals and companies don't utilize these options either due to profit concerns or simply because they haven't reconsidered their philosophy. For me, all I'm saying is that I try to make my life choices with the least derogatory impact on other life forms so when presented with an option, I choose to select the option that's the lightest on my conscience. I don't need or want an animal to suffer on my behalf so that my life improves by an insignificant margin.

    I hear from some that we are superior, more advanced and more intelligent than other life forms so why shouldn't we use these animals for our own betterment. There are some people here who, though they haven't specified reasons, take the position that we have the right to use animals as long as it contributes to human life. I then have to wonder how these people would feel if a more advanced, intelligent life form evolved or inhabited earth and [/FONT]
    determined the benefits of experimenting on humans (themselves included) for their own betterment. Would they acquiesce with the same disregard and lack of concern for the (human) lesser life form? It may seem like a silly point but it's a valid point. Since we are supposedly more advanced and intelligent, shouldn't we be applying compassion and reflection with our decisions and actions instead of cavalierly declaring that we can do something simply because we have a right and self appointed entitlement?
     
  20. galaxee

    galaxee mostly benevolent

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    9,810
    437
    0
    Location:
    MD
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    i don't know how well proven all of those alternatives are- according to NICEATM-ICCVAM - Test Methods Evaluated by ICCVAM there is a lot of reviewing left to do for many alternative methods, and they have the potential to reduce but not completely eliminate animal use.

    remember that some cosmetics qualify as drugs (think antiperspirants, medicated soaps, etc) so the FDA does regulate some of those for safety and they require certain tests to be done.

    humanity is inherently fairly selfish. but i think that bearing witness to human suffering just makes that selfishness even stronger- we hate to see our loved ones and friends suffering and want progress to treat the illnesses that affect them. animals are required for that end, and we're willing to accept that with the condition of animal suffering involved being kept to a minimum...
     
Loading...