Debunking PETA!

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else below.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Ironclad, Onyx8

Re: Debunking PETA!

#201  Postby Mick » Sep 03, 2011 4:08 pm

Federico wrote:

Well, I thought the debate was over about this subject because, with people like Mick, there is no space for debate but only for insults.


Well, that's odd, since I 've been debating for several posts now. Is a vision test in need?

Where have I been only insulting


[list][*]It's an excuse terrorists of all beliefs use to justify their lust for blood,


It is? lol. Er, no. All I meant is that these are value-laden terms which should be avoided. it'll get you nowhere.


The second reason is the phrase reveals unerringly which side Mick belongs to because it puts on the same level man's violence against man done either to help man or animal.
I actually have not advocated nor have I supported violence against man, anywhere here.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Debunking PETA!

#202  Postby Federico » Sep 04, 2011 4:24 am

Mick wrote:
Federico wrote:

The second reason is the phrase reveals unerringly which side Mick belongs to because it puts on the same level man's violence against man done either to help man or animal.
I actually have not advocated nor have I supported violence against man, anywhere here.


OK Mick, lets try another tack.
Is it fair to say even if you don’t' belong to either PETA or ALF you are a sympathizer for their philosophy and MO?
And that, just because Animal Rights and other similar associations are not even trying to obtain for animals what are their just rights (which, BTW, are the same as humans') by using wishy-washy methods, some other "more energetic" tactics should be used?
And since some of those "more energetic" tactics, when used by men against other men in support of men's purposes, qualify them to be called either terrorists or FF depending on which side of the fence you are sitting on, is it fair to say that, when those tactics are used for the purpose of advancing animal rights, at least for some people (e.g., me), those using these tactics may be called Terrorists?
In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.(Martin Luther King Jr)
User avatar
Federico
 
Posts: 931
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking PETA!

#203  Postby Mr.Samsa » Sep 04, 2011 8:19 am

Mick wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:There are 3 links there. The first involved a group that believed they were carrying out the actions of ALF (whether ALF distanced themselves afterwards is irrelevant),


Is this a joke? In determining whether those actions were ALF, it is supposed to be "irrelevant" that ALF distanced itself from those actions? Are you kidding me? Heck, ALF blatantly said it was against their principles.


They were part of ALFs association and were carrying out actions they thought were condoned by ALF. ALF can backtrack and claim they don't support it, but when they promote violent actions and suggest that murder is a valid form of protest, they lose their right to claim they had no hand in the actions of their affiliates. It's similar to a radical group of Muslims blowing up a building because they believe that's what their religion teaches, and having the more mainstream groups distancing themselves from them - they're still Muslims, because they believe what they're doing is what their religion commands. The same applies to ALF.

But like I said, that is only one example of many, so even if we ignore it then it doesn't matter because it's not like it's a rare or isolated case.

Mick wrote:

the second was the attack on Brian Cass by David Blenkinsop who was a long time ALF member (and still is, I think?),


Yeah, and? There is an overlap of 'membership' between violent and non-violent animal rights groups. Sometimes individuals of one commit acts in the name of one group and not the other, and vice versa. That he was a 'member' of ALF (more like claimed actions in ALF's name) does not imply that this action was one of ALF.


Oh that's convenient.

Mick wrote:
and the third resulted in a press release from ALF saying "we did it" basically.
Support for this would be great.


Their press office said: "On the night of June 30, we paid a visit to Lynn Fairbanks' home," (it's in the article).

Mick wrote:

You can ignore the first link if you don't believe they were true scotsmen, but these aren't isolated incidents, I can just keep googling more and more.
If you're trying to reference an informal fallacy (scotsman), you'll need to argue for it.


No need to argue for it, the concept explains itself in reference to our discussion. If they believed they were acting according to the beliefs of ALF, and ALF encourages violent acts and murder as a form of protest, then whether ALF tries to distance itself or not is irrelevant.

Mick wrote:

Oh, what really is morally true. Good job we cleared that up. Out of interest, which moral system has been demonstrated to be 'really true'?


That's not relevant. What's relevant is that you mischaracterized their stand on this issue. Whether their view really is correct or not is not something I need to presently argue for my point.


Of course it's important. I claimed they were innocent and you disagreed with me by appealing to some universal moral law. If the victims aren't innocent then I need to know what moral system we're using to determine this.

Mick wrote:

I thought the fact that the neighbour was inside the property that was intended to be blown to pieces would be sufficient.


No, of course not. You'd still have the element of intent to kill or harm which has yet been shown (though certainly presumed by you, since it likely fits your preconcieved notions of ALF).


They visited her house at night. Most people are home at night. They obviously didn't check to see the house was empty first. Therefore, they were knowingly accepting the very real possibility that they were going to kill someone.

Unless they are complete morons. Which is of course a possibility, since we're talking about ALF members.

Mick wrote:
Unless the old woman was blast-resistant, it is impossible for them to attack the property without attacking the woman as well.
This is so misleading. Correctly said, without your presuppositions, it is this: It is impossible for them to attack the building without the woman being harmed. Your way suggests that they attacked the woman, as if it were intentional. My way is neutral on the issue of intent.


So if I shot you in the chest, I could claim that I didn't intend to attack you but I simply wanted to ruin your shirt?

Mick wrote:
Sometimes rational argument doesn't cut it, but you need to try at least.


lmao. They have. Animal rights groups and philosophers have been arguing for this for quite some time.

Peter Singer has came to the intellectual aid of ALF, too. He argues on similar lines as I do.


But Singer is a terrible philosopher... If he's their spokesman for rational argumentation, then it's no surprise that people having been convinced by their position.

Mick wrote:

Just an argument or two, maybe an education program aimed at children to get them thinking. The first step should not be: Let's blow up the houses of people who do research with animals.


It wasn't. ALF didn't form in a vacuum. It was formed well after animal rights and welfare advocates have been arguing for simlilar lines of thought.


No, don't go associating ALF with animal rights and welfare advocates. Those are people actually trying to make a difference.

Mick wrote:

There are obvious pragmatic reasons why I should care about myself: I like living and dislike dying. Why should I care about sentient animals? I'm not saying you're wrong, but your position obviously isn't a brute fact, you need to support it with arguments. If you want to base your moral system on caring for sentient animals, then make a case.


Pragmatic reasons are not clearly moral reasons. It is a moral question.


Of course pragmatic reasons are moral reasons, it's a fairly uncontroversial assumption on what we should base our values on.

Mick wrote:
It's empirically true. The lifespans of lab animals tend to be far longer than those in the wild (including subjects that are terminated),


Which suggests what of happiness?


Nothing, but it says a lot for healthiness - which was what I was supporting.

Mick wrote:
they are far healthier due to the fact that they are under 24/7 surveillance with vets on hand (I don't think the "healthier" claim is debatable is it?),


I really have no idea if they are 'healthier'. Frankly, I don't find it all that morally relevant, unless it were the case that they'd be in poor health outside of the facility. But, I doubt that'd be the case.


What do you mean? It isn't debatable that animals in the wild are generally in poor health. Most die from infections, painful lingering injuries, or starvation, and nearly all of them are covered in parasites. Almost none will die of old age.

Mick wrote:

they show far less signs of stress,



Even if this were true (you give me no reason to accept it), I don't see the moral relevance, since I see no reason to think that outside of the facility, they'd have the sort of stress which warrants their removal.


It can be shown for whatever animal you would like to discuss. Ever seen a wild rat? Notice the red fluid around their eyes and nose that looks like blood? This is porphyrin and a sign of a sick and stressed animal. All wild rats are also born with mycoplasma, which means that it's near-inevitable that they will develop serious respiratory issues at some point in their lives, where they will struggle to breathe for days or weeks on end (and if they survive their first bout, it just means that it's even more likely to flare up against later). Ever seen a wild pigeon? Notice how when they flap around on streets there's no white powder being thrown into the air off their wings? This is because only unstressed and healthy pigeons have this white powder coating their wings.

I can go on and on, but you won't find any animal expert that disagrees with the claim that lab animals are far less stressed than wild animals.

Mick wrote:It's funny that you characterise their time in these facilities as if they were time in a spa. Do they get mud baths, too? Perhaps massages? What a joke. It's a blatant mischaracterization of what goes on in there, at least far too much of the time. For instance, one study is reported to describe 15% GM animals having 'severe discomfort', whatever that's supposed to mean.
http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/animal ... tification


I can't find any citation on that page for that claim. They also point out that one "study" suggested that only 10% experienced harmful effects. Even if 15% experienced severe discomfort, this is still far better than the discomfort experienced by wild animals.

Animals are extremely well-looked after in facilities and it is like being in a spa for most animals. They have their beds and rooms cleaned every day, with extreme care and caution being taken on the extent of the cleaning and to ensure that the products have no harmful effects on the subjects, they are inspected by a vet on a daily basis so they can catch any sickness or injury early, they are often put through behavioral tests which are similar to gambling machines that give out special treats, and they have free food and drink whenever they like.

How many labs have you visited? It sounds like you have the impression that they are like Nazi concentration camps.


Mick wrote:Tell me again how comfortable they are. Wait, no. Tell these non-human primates how great they got it. http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/bio ... _research/


Is that the worst footage they have? Some of it was bad, like when one of the monkeys rolled off the table - it should have been secured, but most of it only looks bad when you don't understand what's going on (i.e. you get a biased presentation of the images). For example, a couple of the monkeys had injuries which makes it look terrible. But they would have been given first-rate treatment as soon as possible. If they were left alone with their injuries, then not only would they be morally guilty, but they'd also be shit scientists.

I couldn't listen to the audio of the video, but the article is blatantly lying here:

Right now, approximately 95% of the animals used for research aren't afforded even the minimal protections of the Animal Welfare Act.


Buuullshit. Animal researchers are held to much more stringent animal welfare laws than the average public, as well as dozens more animal welfare laws that aren't applicable to the average person. For example, you can get fired for not wiping down a cage properly, or mopping the floor next to a cage properly. Animal researchers are largely composed of huge animal lovers, and even if you managed to keep your job if you failed to ensure that an animal does not go a minute without access to water, your colleagues would essentially force you to leave.

Mick wrote:After watching videos like these, it's a wonder how ALF can maintain its non-violent stance.


I've seen documentaries by Michael Moore that were more balanced and accurate than that video.

Mick wrote:

never die from a slow or painful disease/injury, and they have free access to as much food or water as they like. There are very few advantages to them being out in the wild.


You mean, other than that fact they are free, not captivated in small isolated cages and not subjected to our experiements? Just small details, eh?


What do you mean by "free"? What do you think animals do in the wild; go on adventures with Bambi and Winnie the Pooh? They spend the vast majority of their lives trying to find food and water, and basically not starving to death. That's not any more free than living in a lab. Most lab animals don't live in small cages - I wouldn't be surprised if the cages shown on that video were the experimental chambers, or used for observation, which means they'd only spend a minimal amount of time in there. If they lived their entire lives in the small cages (and not the larger cages that they were shown to be swinging around in later in the video), then I would agree that such a lab needs to be shut down. And subjected to experiments? Some experiments can be disturbing, yes, but we need to keep in mind that the experiences they have in the wild are far worse than anything a scientist can come up with. Also keep in mind that many experiments are quite enjoyable for the subjects (like most behavioral experiments), and such tasks are actually recommended for cognitive development and well-being.

Mick wrote:Why don't I just stick you in a cage with a few other people, feed you and give you lots to drink? But, here's the catch: I get to experiment on you and then likely kill you afterwards, but that's no biggie. You got a sweet deal. Man, you should be thanking me.


Inaccurate analogy. Most lab animals aren't taken from the wild (so have no knowledge of another "way of life" like I would), and my life in the 'wild' is not one of pain, suffering and starvation. If I did live like the average pigeon or rat, unsure of where my next meal is coming from, covered in parasites, constantly starving and getting sick or injured, then fuck yes I would jump at the opportunity to have a roof over my head and free food. Stick needles in my head, it'd be a fuck lot better than the alternative.

Mick wrote:
He wouldn't because he was a soldier and it was an act of war. Soldiers killed in war aren't "murderers" because legally they are licensed to kill.


Legally speaking, typically soldiers can only kill when it is a justifiable act of war. They are not at liberty to kill, and this is why some soldiers have been tried for war crimes. The fellow that tried to kill Hitler was executed for a crime under German law; he committed treason or something like it. Yet, we wouldn't call him a murderer; we wouldn't call him a murderer not because he isn't so according to our laws (he wasnt subject to them after all) nor because he was innocent under German laws, or any other law. We wouldn't call him a murderer in the moral sense because we understand that his actions were justified, in the moral sense. Yet, they still constitute an assassination attempt.


I think you're confusing "we" with "me" (as in 'you'), as I don't know anyone who would agree with you. Ignoring the legal aspect of the word "murder" makes the term meaningless.

And such an act would only be morally justifiable under some moral systems. Many moral systems believe that any kind of killing is wrong, like the christians ("Thou shalt not kill").

Mick wrote:
But if he weren't a soldier, and just a regular Joe like Lee Harvey Oswald, it would still be called "assassination"


lol. that's simply absurd. Look, how the word is used: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... /July-Plot

Admit fault, please, or at least drop the point. This is insane.


Admit fault of what? Your link uses it in the way it is defined, "To murder someone for political reasons".

If you want to redefine words in the English language, then that's fine, but you probably need to contact some of the major dictionaries rather than discussing it with random people on the internet.
Image
User avatar
Mr.Samsa
Suspended User
 
Posts: 11370
Age: 28

Print view this post

Re: Debunking PETA!

#204  Postby Mick » Sep 04, 2011 6:22 pm

They were part of ALFs association and were carrying out actions they thought were condoned by ALF. ALF can backtrack and claim they don't support it, but when they promote violent actions and suggest that murder is a valid form of protest, they lose their right to claim they had no hand in the actions of their affiliates.


But they do not claim that murder is a valid form of protest for them, nor have they promoted violent actions. In fact, they reject the word 'violence' since they only target property and the like. You're making stuff up again. You need to understand that voicing opinions on these matters, even as a member of ALF, does not necessarily constitute an opinion of ALF. Likewise, when a Liberal member speaks on an issue, he does not necessarily speak for the Liberals, does he?


Their press office said: "On the night of June 30, we paid a visit to Lynn Fairbanks' home," (it's in the article).


Again, ALF gives them a platform to speak. They publish their work similar to a newspaper publishing opinion articles of its journalists and special guests. Such people do not speak for the newspaper itself; and so it is for ALF too.


Of course it's important. I claimed they were innocent and you disagreed with me by appealing to some universal moral law. If the victims aren't innocent then I need to know what moral system we're using to determine this.


No, that's not what I did. I didn't disagree that they are innocent--i said nothing of their innocence or guilt. What I did was question the ground which allows you to call them innocent and address a mischaracterization of their position.



Of course pragmatic reasons are moral reasons, it's a fairly uncontroversial assumption on what we should base our values on.


There's two different claims here. If values and the like are based on pragmatic reasons, then pragmatic reasons are not also moral reasons. When we base our values on pragmatic concerns, we are using our pragmatic concerns as reasons for our values; the pragmatic concern is not a moral reason; it leads us to moral reasons--we build on them or we infer from them, or what have you.

Of course this is not the case if you're a moral pragmaticist, but that's certainly not something based on a " fairly uncontroversial assumption".




It can be shown for whatever animal you would like to discuss. Ever seen a wild rat? Notice the red fluid around their eyes and nose that looks like blood? This is porphyrin and a sign of a sick and stressed animal. All wild rats are also born with mycoplasma, which means that it's near-inevitable that they will develop serious respiratory issues at some point in their lives, where they will struggle to breathe for days or weeks on end (and if they survive their first bout, it just means that it's even more likely to flare up against later). Ever seen a wild pigeon? Notice how when they flap around on streets there's no white powder being thrown into the air off their wings? This is because only unstressed and healthy pigeons have this white powder coating their wings.

I can go on and on, but you won't find any animal expert that disagrees with the claim that lab animals are far less stressed than wild animals.


In all of this blather, you didn't once address the issue you were supposed to respond to. Again:


Even if this were true (you give me no reason to accept it), I don't see the moral relevance, since I see no reason to think that outside of the facility, they'd have the sort of stress which warrants their removal.


The bold is the important part to grasp now.


I can't find any citation on that page for that claim. They also point out that one "study" suggested that only 10% experienced harmful effects. Even if 15% experienced severe discomfort, this is still far better than the discomfort experienced by wild animals.


Even if it were, and you certainly have not supported that, so what? Where's the justification? It still doesn't suggest that the animal is better off as a test experiment than in the wild. Moreover, since many of these animals are farmed for experimental purposes, it is not as if we must only ask if they would have better lives in the wild. Perhaps we should consider whether we should be farming these animals at all? If they weren't farmed, then we need not worry about their well-being and the ethics of it all, since they woulldn't exist. If there's a moral dilemma here, it's because the scientists and the farmers created one to begin with.


Buuullshit. Animal researchers are held to much more stringent animal welfare laws than the average public, as well as dozens more animal welfare laws that aren't applicable to the average person. For example, you can get fired for not wiping down a cage properly, or mopping the floor next to a cage properly. Animal researchers are largely composed of huge animal lovers, and even if you managed to keep your job if you failed to ensure that an animal does not go a minute without access to water, your colleagues would essentially force you to leave.


Yeah, yeah, so you simply tell me. How am I supposed to respond to this? These are just allegations.

I'm unconcerned as to whether that stat is correct or not--i didnt even pay attention to it. My concern is with what I saw.


Animals are extremely well-looked after in facilities and it is like being in a spa for most animals.


I will ignore this. I cant even dignify it.

What do you mean by "free"? What do you think animals do in the wild; go on adventures with Bambi and Winnie the Pooh? They spend the vast majority of their lives trying to find food and water, and basically not starving to death. That's not any more free than living in a lab.


lol. I love how you use language to hide what really goes on here. What you really should have said was that it is not any more free than being held captive in a lab subjected to unwanted tests and often killed. But you won't say that because here the tension is much more visible, isn't it? Here we certainly would hesitate because in the wild there is no such captivity and subjection, is there? in the wild, the animal is free to follow their interests, potential and just simply live their lives.

Most lab animals don't live in small cages -

wow. just wow.

yes, but we need to keep in mind that the experiences they have in the wild are far worse than anything a scientist can come up with.


Image
[img]http://ca.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTf2zTvmNOYicAt232FAx./SIG=13r9l1jv3/EXP=1315188563/**http%[/img]

Man, I should send my dog to spas like these.


Also keep in mind that many experiments are quite enjoyable for the subjects (like most behavioral experiments), and such tasks are actually recommended for cognitive development and well-being.


We're not presently discussing those type of experiments.


Inaccurate analogy. Most lab animals aren't taken from the wild (so have no knowledge of another "way of life" like I would), and my life in the 'wild' is not one of pain, suffering and starvation. If I did live like the average pigeon or rat, unsure of where my next meal is coming from, covered in parasites, constantly starving and getting sick or injured, then fuck yes I would jump at the opportunity to have a roof over my head and free food. Stick needles in my head, it'd be a fuck lot better than the alternative.


That you know of something other than the cage only makes it worse to do it to you. It's not as if the analogy falls apart here, for it'd still be wrong to have farmed you and did the same, wouldn't it?

True, nature can be brutal. But let's not characterize their lives as "one of pain, suffering and starvation." That's inaccurate, and you know it. But even if you life was like that, it'd only suggest that we have some good reason to remove you from that environment. It doesn't suggest that we can hold you captive to experiment and kill you. There's no dicotomy between holding an animal captive to experiment and kill it or releasing it into the wild to have a life of "pain, suffering and starvation". Admit this much.



I think you're confusing "we" with "me" (as in 'you'), as I don't know anyone who would agree with you. Ignoring the legal aspect of the word "murder" makes the term meaningless.
You've honestly never heard 'murder' being used strictly in the moral sense? Are you new here?


Admit fault of what? Your link uses it in the way it is defined, "To murder someone for political reasons".

If you want to redefine words in the English language, then that's fine, but you probably need to contact some of the major dictionaries rather than discussing it with random people on the internet.



lol. i give up.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Re: Debunking PETA!

#205  Postby Mr.Samsa » Sep 05, 2011 4:28 am

Mick wrote:
They were part of ALFs association and were carrying out actions they thought were condoned by ALF. ALF can backtrack and claim they don't support it, but when they promote violent actions and suggest that murder is a valid form of protest, they lose their right to claim they had no hand in the actions of their affiliates.


But they do not claim that murder is a valid form of protest for them, nor have they promoted violent actions. In fact, they reject the word 'violence' since they only target property and the like. You're making stuff up again. You need to understand that voicing opinions on these matters, even as a member of ALF, does not necessarily constitute an opinion of ALF. Likewise, when a Liberal member speaks on an issue, he does not necessarily speak for the Liberals, does he?


The difference of liberals speaking for liberals is that they aren't an organisation, it's a broad term applied to a group of people. If a member of the IRA set off a pipebomb in the middle of the street, and he claims that he was doing so for the cause of the IRA, but the IRA tries to distance itself from his actions, then I would still hold the IRA at least partly responsible. When an organisation creates an atmosphere of violence and lack of critical thinking, then bad shit is going to happen.

Mick wrote:

Their press office said: "On the night of June 30, we paid a visit to Lynn Fairbanks' home," (it's in the article).


Again, ALF gives them a platform to speak. They publish their work similar to a newspaper publishing opinion articles of its journalists and special guests. Such people do not speak for the newspaper itself; and so it is for ALF too.


Come on. At this rate, the only evidence you'd accept is that if the organisation of ALF was an organism itself, and it rose up to say, "Yeah sorry, that was me". It's an organisation, so it can't speak for itself, instead it does so through the actions of its members and the statements from its spokespeople.

Mick wrote:

Of course it's important. I claimed they were innocent and you disagreed with me by appealing to some universal moral law. If the victims aren't innocent then I need to know what moral system we're using to determine this.


No, that's not what I did. I didn't disagree that they are innocent--i said nothing of their innocence or guilt. What I did was question the ground which allows you to call them innocent and address a mischaracterization of their position.


Well if you disagreed with me that using innocent in the legal sense, and instead suggested that there is a universal moral law which can be used to determine the guilt and innocence of people, then we simply reach a point of absurdity since nobody knows what this universal moral law is supposed to be. Sure, they might not be innocent in some "moral" sense, but unless we all agree on what moral system we're working from, then we just descend into meaninglessness.

Mick wrote:

Of course pragmatic reasons are moral reasons, it's a fairly uncontroversial assumption on what we should base our values on.


There's two different claims here. If values and the like are based on pragmatic reasons, then pragmatic reasons are not also moral reasons. When we base our values on pragmatic concerns, we are using our pragmatic concerns as reasons for our values; the pragmatic concern is not a moral reason; it leads us to moral reasons--we build on them or we infer from them, or what have you.


Fair point, but this tangent doesn't affect my original point. We were discussing what values we should use as the basis of our moral systems, and you suggested that caring for sentient beings is something we should value and to reject this would entail rejecting our own well-being. I suggested that the value which results in us caring about ourselves (and not necessarily other sentient animals) are pragmatic.

Mick wrote:

It can be shown for whatever animal you would like to discuss. Ever seen a wild rat? Notice the red fluid around their eyes and nose that looks like blood? This is porphyrin and a sign of a sick and stressed animal. All wild rats are also born with mycoplasma, which means that it's near-inevitable that they will develop serious respiratory issues at some point in their lives, where they will struggle to breathe for days or weeks on end (and if they survive their first bout, it just means that it's even more likely to flare up against later). Ever seen a wild pigeon? Notice how when they flap around on streets there's no white powder being thrown into the air off their wings? This is because only unstressed and healthy pigeons have this white powder coating their wings.

I can go on and on, but you won't find any animal expert that disagrees with the claim that lab animals are far less stressed than wild animals.


In all of this blather, you didn't once address the issue you were supposed to respond to. Again:


Even if this were true (you give me no reason to accept it), I don't see the moral relevance, since I see no reason to think that outside of the facility, they'd have the sort of stress which warrants their removal.


The bold is the important part to grasp now.


You don't think all of the stress and illness I mentioned above are good reasons to remove them? You don't need to agree that they should go to a lab, but I don't think you can argue that they shouldn't (morally) be removed from the wild, assuming we care about the well-being of sentient animals.

Mick wrote:
I can't find any citation on that page for that claim. They also point out that one "study" suggested that only 10% experienced harmful effects. Even if 15% experienced severe discomfort, this is still far better than the discomfort experienced by wild animals.


Even if it were, and you certainly have not supported that, so what? Where's the justification? It still doesn't suggest that the animal is better off as a test experiment than in the wild. Moreover, since many of these animals are farmed for experimental purposes, it is not as if we must only ask if they would have better lives in the wild. Perhaps we should consider whether we should be farming these animals at all? If they weren't farmed, then we need not worry about their well-being and the ethics of it all, since they woulldn't exist. If there's a moral dilemma here, it's because the scientists and the farmers created one to begin with.


Well I guess it's up to you to demonstrate that they experience any serious level of stress, illness, unhappiness or discomfort. If they don't, then there wouldn't be anything wrong with farming these animals and doing tests on them. And then if you can show that there is a systematic problem with the way research animals are treated, you'd need to justify your claims that morally we should care about their well-being.

Mick wrote:

Buuullshit. Animal researchers are held to much more stringent animal welfare laws than the average public, as well as dozens more animal welfare laws that aren't applicable to the average person. For example, you can get fired for not wiping down a cage properly, or mopping the floor next to a cage properly. Animal researchers are largely composed of huge animal lovers, and even if you managed to keep your job if you failed to ensure that an animal does not go a minute without access to water, your colleagues would essentially force you to leave.


Yeah, yeah, so you simply tell me. How am I supposed to respond to this? These are just allegations.


You can respond either by accepting or rejecting them, that's generally how conversations work. Unfortunately, I can't provide you with the lab rules and memos I've received over the years concerning these issues as obviously that would violate confidentiality agreements.

Mick wrote:I'm unconcerned as to whether that stat is correct or not--i didnt even pay attention to it. My concern is with what I saw.


That's fine, but I was just pointing out that the article was bullshit.

Mick wrote:

Animals are extremely well-looked after in facilities and it is like being in a spa for most animals.


I will ignore this. I cant even dignify it.


You can ignore the truth all you like, but I wouldn't recommend it.

Mick wrote:
What do you mean by "free"? What do you think animals do in the wild; go on adventures with Bambi and Winnie the Pooh? They spend the vast majority of their lives trying to find food and water, and basically not starving to death. That's not any more free than living in a lab.


lol. I love how you use language to hide what really goes on here. What you really should have said was that it is not any more free than being held captive in a lab subjected to unwanted tests and often killed. But you won't say that because here the tension is much more visible, isn't it? Here we certainly would hesitate because in the wild there is no such captivity and subjection, is there? in the wild, the animal is free to follow their interests, potential and just simply live their lives.


I have no problem wording it that way if you like, saying "in the lab" is shorter and more convenient. However, I find it hilarious that you accuse me of using language to hide what's really going on and then go on to say: "in the wild, the animal is free to follow their interests, potential and just simply live their lives." It sounds like a Disney movie, especially how it leaves out all the pain and suffering, and premature death, that happens in the wild. :lol:

Mick wrote:

Most lab animals don't live in small cages -

wow. just wow.


There are strict laws that determine how much space an animal must have, and that's why the monkeys in that video were kept in home cages that were fairly large (enough room to run, swing around, climb, etc). The experimental chambers are smaller to make it easier to carry out the tests, and to administer any medical interventions that might be necessary (like stitching up the gash in that monkey's leg).

The problem is that you've probably never stepped foot in an animal research lab, so all you've seen are biased videos which misrepresent the information (i.e. like showing the monkeys in their smaller experimental chambers and pretending that they spend their entire lives confined in that small space).

Mick wrote:
yes, but we need to keep in mind that the experiences they have in the wild are far worse than anything a scientist can come up with.


Image
[img]http://ca.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTf2zTvmNOYicAt232FAx./SIG=13r9l1jv3/EXP=1315188563/**http%[/img]

Man, I should send my dog to spas like these.


Only the first picture works. Out of interest, do you have any idea what the contraption is or does? Do you have any information on what lab it came from? Any reason to think the monkey is feeling any discomfort, except the uninformed anthropomorphic interpretation of its facial expression based on one single opportunistic photograph?

Given how well animals are treated in labs, I have actually tried to recreate the conditions for all of my pets. I even put them through behavioral tests, because I know it's a good way of stimulating them and providing environmental enrichment.

I'm more concerned about how most pets are treated by owners, rather than how they're treated in labs.

Mick wrote:

Also keep in mind that many experiments are quite enjoyable for the subjects (like most behavioral experiments), and such tasks are actually recommended for cognitive development and well-being.


We're not presently discussing those type of experiments.


But those types of experiments make up the vast amount of animal research.

Mick wrote:
Inaccurate analogy. Most lab animals aren't taken from the wild (so have no knowledge of another "way of life" like I would), and my life in the 'wild' is not one of pain, suffering and starvation. If I did live like the average pigeon or rat, unsure of where my next meal is coming from, covered in parasites, constantly starving and getting sick or injured, then fuck yes I would jump at the opportunity to have a roof over my head and free food. Stick needles in my head, it'd be a fuck lot better than the alternative.


That you know of something other than the cage only makes it worse to do it to you. It's not as if the analogy falls apart here, for it'd still be wrong to have farmed you and did the same, wouldn't it?


Why would it?

Mick wrote:True, nature can be brutal. But let's not characterize their lives as "one of pain, suffering and starvation." That's inaccurate, and you know it.


How is it inaccurate? Life in the wild is predominantly shit. Let's not pretend that a life in the wild is one of freedom and the opportunity to explore and reach their potential.

Mick wrote:But even if you life was like that, it'd only suggest that we have some good reason to remove you from that environment. It doesn't suggest that we can hold you captive to experiment and kill you. There's no dicotomy between holding an animal captive to experiment and kill it or releasing it into the wild to have a life of "pain, suffering and starvation". Admit this much.


True enough, but I didn't present a dichotomy. I pointed out that life in a lab isn't one of pain and suffering, and I highlighted this by pointing out how much better off they are compared to those in the wild. Of course, the best solution would be to remove animals from the wild, and freely provide them with housing and shelter, for nothing in return and at the entire expense of those providing the hospitality, but unfortunately in the real world this isn't possible or sustainable.

But surely one option isn't wrong simply because it isn't perfect? It's better to improve their lives to some degree, even if the solution isn't the best of all possible worlds.

Mick wrote:

I think you're confusing "we" with "me" (as in 'you'), as I don't know anyone who would agree with you. Ignoring the legal aspect of the word "murder" makes the term meaningless.
You've honestly never heard 'murder' being used strictly in the moral sense? Are you new here?


I never said I hadn't heard it used in the moral sense. I said that outside of the legal context the word is meaningless.

Mick wrote:

Admit fault of what? Your link uses it in the way it is defined, "To murder someone for political reasons".

If you want to redefine words in the English language, then that's fine, but you probably need to contact some of the major dictionaries rather than discussing it with random people on the internet.



lol. i give up.


Understandable - changing the English language is a tough feat.
Image
User avatar
Mr.Samsa
Suspended User
 
Posts: 11370
Age: 28

Print view this post

Re: Debunking PETA!

#206  Postby Federico » Sep 05, 2011 4:14 pm

Jeez Mr Samsa,
I'm really amazed at the amount of time you are prepared to spend fencing with a fundy over a subject he has absolutely no
intention of changing his mind about, namely "Animal Rights and their absolute equivalence to Human Rights."
And that's at the heart of any statement and/or position by people adhering to PETA and ALF, while reasonable animal lovers would agree they have no judicial nor philosophical rights since they have no responsibilities.
And I understand and even sympathize with their outrage at the way some animals are treated before been killed, even in the EU. But there are laws regulating how cattle and chicken should be penned and transported, and not because it's in their rights but because they should be treated humanely. And I can do that while ignoring their extreme positions about using animals for food, or apparel, or just for fun.
But it's when it comes to their absolute opposition to animals being used for research, and the ways they use to implement such opposition, that they loose entirely my sympathy.

Indeed, according to these people no experiment should be performed with live animals (what they call vivisection) because:
  • humans could be used instead
  • there is no need anymore to use vivisection since research can be done now with cell cultures, or computer simulation.
  • many experiments done with live animals are duplicated work, generally useless and done to make money;
  • the housing facilities for experimental animals are appalling, and the suffering they have to go through inhumane while the results obtained under these conditions are worthless.

One Federal Agency which finances and supervises much research done nowadays for better understanding brain workings, is the National Institute for Mental Health (NIMH).
Now, for reasons unknown to me, Animal Rights extremists have specifically selected NIMH for their anti-research activities.
I don't know if you remember it, but already in 1982 a dark and terryfying cartoon entitled "The Secret of NIMH" came out which scared children out of their wits, and made them anti-research forever.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKRMbb3aMhg[/youtube]
In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.(Martin Luther King Jr)
User avatar
Federico
 
Posts: 931
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking PETA!

#207  Postby mraltair » Sep 05, 2011 5:10 pm

Well I skipped a few pages of this thread because it seemed to repeat itself a few times but I am shocked at PETA, I was under the impression that they were the US equivalent of the RSPCA.

The thing that makes PETA terrible is that they lie about their methods, are excessively aggressive in their promotion and seem to prefer to insult and harass others.

"Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment."


...But are ours to kill and dump en masse.

ETA: Is there a US equivalent of the RSPCA and RSPB?
User avatar
mraltair
 
Posts: 5368

European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Debunking PETA!

#208  Postby VictorTheSixth » Sep 05, 2011 11:06 pm

mraltair wrote:Well I skipped a few pages of this thread because it seemed to repeat itself a few times but I am shocked at PETA, I was under the impression that they were the US equivalent of the RSPCA.

The thing that makes PETA terrible is that they lie about their methods, are excessively aggressive in their promotion and seem to prefer to insult and harass others.

"Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment."


...But are ours to kill and dump en masse.

ETA: Is there a US equivalent of the RSPCA and RSPB?


There's the ASCPCA.

Albeit I have a VERY large personal grudge against them for their stance that reptiles should not be pets. Try telling that to my lovely boa constrictor whose currently curled up in back of my PC and watching me as I type this. I also REALLY don't like how they lump reptiles, monkeys, amphibians, and wild cats all into the category of "Exotic Pets". Suffice to say, I no longer donate.
VictorTheSixth
 
Posts: 502

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking PETA!

#209  Postby Witticism » Sep 06, 2011 1:08 am

Federico wrote:... while reasonable animal lovers would agree they have no judicial nor philosophical rights since they have no responsibilities.

Many humans have "no responsibilities".

Should we use them as experimental subjects :ask:
If you are not vegan, please consider going vegan. It’s a matter of nonviolence. Being vegan is your statement that you reject violence to other sentient beings, to yourself, and to the environment, on which all sentient beings depend.
Gary Francione
User avatar
Witticism
RS Donator
 
Name: Witti
Posts: 7082
Age: 39
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking PETA!

#210  Postby Federico » Sep 06, 2011 4:57 am

Witticism wrote:
Federico wrote:... while reasonable animal lovers would agree they have no judicial nor philosophical rights since they have no responsibilities.

Many humans have "no responsibilities".

Should we use them as experimental subjects :ask:


No, because they are humans, and -- under our present code of moral responsibility -- even if incapacitated or brain dead or in any way incapable of performing his duties a human remains human and will not become a vegetable or an animal.
Under our present moral code humans don't eat humans or experiment with them, like the Nazis did while operating under a different (im)moral code.
In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.(Martin Luther King Jr)
User avatar
Federico
 
Posts: 931
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking PETA!

#211  Postby mraltair » Sep 06, 2011 6:21 am

VictorTheSixth wrote:
mraltair wrote:Well I skipped a few pages of this thread because it seemed to repeat itself a few times but I am shocked at PETA, I was under the impression that they were the US equivalent of the RSPCA.

The thing that makes PETA terrible is that they lie about their methods, are excessively aggressive in their promotion and seem to prefer to insult and harass others.

"Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment."


...But are ours to kill and dump en masse.

ETA: Is there a US equivalent of the RSPCA and RSPB?


There's the ASCPCA.

Albeit I have a VERY large personal grudge against them for their stance that reptiles should not be pets. Try telling that to my lovely boa constrictor whose currently curled up in back of my PC and watching me as I type this. I also REALLY don't like how they lump reptiles, monkeys, amphibians, and wild cats all into the category of "Exotic Pets". Suffice to say, I no longer donate.


:cheers:

That's odd. Reptiles are great little pets. :scratch:
User avatar
mraltair
 
Posts: 5368

European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking PETA!

#212  Postby Witticism » Sep 06, 2011 11:06 am

Federico wrote:
Witticism wrote:
Federico wrote:... while reasonable animal lovers would agree they have no judicial nor philosophical rights since they have no responsibilities.

Many humans have "no responsibilities".

Should we use them as experimental subjects :ask:


No, because they are humans, and -- under our present code of moral responsibility -- even if incapacitated or brain dead or in any way incapable of performing his duties a human remains human and will not become a vegetable or an animal.

Sooo, humans aren't animals :ask:

Federico wrote:Under our present moral code humans don't eat humans or experiment with them, like the Nazis did while operating under a different (im)moral code.

Who is this 'our' you talk of :ask:

Your statement is equally valid, with a few slight tweaks ...

Under our present moral code humans don't eat humans or experiment with them, like the Nazis Americans did while operating under a different contemporaneous (im)moral code.


I thought it was only the religious who thought humans were somehow not animals. :scratch:

Perhaps you could you explain why you believe humans are not animals and why they are superior to all other animals?
If you are not vegan, please consider going vegan. It’s a matter of nonviolence. Being vegan is your statement that you reject violence to other sentient beings, to yourself, and to the environment, on which all sentient beings depend.
Gary Francione
User avatar
Witticism
RS Donator
 
Name: Witti
Posts: 7082
Age: 39
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking PETA!

#213  Postby Witticism » Sep 06, 2011 12:39 pm

Federico wrote:Jeez Mr Samsa,
I'm really amazed at the amount of time you are prepared to spend fencing with a fundy over a subject he has absolutely no
intention of changing his mind about
, namely "Animal Rights and their absolute equivalence to Human Rights."

Hmm, he must be the only person in this thread who has no intention of changing his mind ... :roll:


Federico wrote:And that's at the heart of any statement and/or position by people adhering to PETA and ALF, while reasonable animal lovers would agree they have no judicial nor philosophical rights since they have no responsibilities.

Sarbi's ...


Image




colleagues would disagree with you given that she was responsible for lives of many Aussie Sappers and Afghanis.

Federico wrote:
Indeed, according to these people no experiment should be performed with live animals (what they call vivisection) because:
  • humans could be used instead
  • there is no need anymore to use vivisection since research can be done now with cell cultures, or computer simulation.
  • many experiments done with live animals are duplicated work, generally useless and done to make money;
  • the housing facilities for experimental animals are appalling, and the suffering they have to go through inhumane while the results obtained under these conditions are worthless.


Its not just 'these people' but many research scientists themselves that want to see an end to vivisection.

"Since there is no way to defend the use of animal model systems in plain English or with scientific facts, they resort to double-talk in technical jargon...The virtue of animal model systems to those in hot pursuit of the federal dollars is that they can be used to prove anything - no matter how foolish, or false, or dangerous this might be. There is such a wide variation in the results of animal model systems that there is always some system which will 'prove' a point....The moral is that animal model systems not only kill animals, they also kill humans. There is no good factual evidence to show that the use of animals in cancer research has led to the prevention or cure of a single human cancer."

- Dr. D.J. Bross, Ph.D., 1982, former director of the largest cancer research institute in the world, the Sloan-Kettering Institute, then Director of Biostatics, Roswell Memorial Institute, Buffalo, NY.


Here are just a few organisations with the aim that "no experiment should be performed with live animals":

If you are not vegan, please consider going vegan. It’s a matter of nonviolence. Being vegan is your statement that you reject violence to other sentient beings, to yourself, and to the environment, on which all sentient beings depend.
Gary Francione
User avatar
Witticism
RS Donator
 
Name: Witti
Posts: 7082
Age: 39
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Re: Debunking PETA!

#214  Postby CRasch » Sep 20, 2011 2:13 am

Witticism wrote:
Federico wrote:Jeez Mr Samsa,
I'm really amazed at the amount of time you are prepared to spend fencing with a fundy over a subject he has absolutely no
intention of changing his mind about
, namely "Animal Rights and their absolute equivalence to Human Rights."

Hmm, he must be the only person in this thread who has no intention of changing his mind ... :roll:


Federico wrote:And that's at the heart of any statement and/or position by people adhering to PETA and ALF, while reasonable animal lovers would agree they have no judicial nor philosophical rights since they have no responsibilities.

Sarbi's ...


Image




colleagues would disagree with you given that she was responsible for lives of many Aussie Sappers and Afghanis.

Federico wrote:
Indeed, according to these people no experiment should be performed with live animals (what they call vivisection ) because:
  • humans could be used instead
  • there is no need anymore to use vivisection since research can be done now with cell cultures, or computer simulation.
  • many experiments done with live animals are duplicated work, generally useless and done to make money;
  • the housing facilities for experimental animals are appalling, and the suffering they have to go through inhumane while the results obtained under these conditions are worthless.


Its not just 'these people' but many research scientists themselves that want to see an end to vivisection.

"Since there is no way to defend the use of animal model systems in plain English or with scientific facts, they resort to double-talk in technical jargon...The virtue of animal model systems to those in hot pursuit of the federal dollars is that they can be used to prove anything - no matter how foolish, or false, or dangerous this might be. There is such a wide variation in the results of animal model systems that there is always some system which will 'prove' a point....The moral is that animal model systems not only kill animals, they also kill humans. There is no good factual evidence to show that the use of animals in cancer research has led to the prevention or cure of a single human cancer."

- Dr. D.J. Bross, Ph.D., 1982, former director of the largest cancer research institute in the world, the Sloan-Kettering Institute, then Director of Biostatics, Roswell Memorial Institute, Buffalo, NY.


Here are just a few organisations with the aim that "no experiment should be performed with live animals":


Until you can cite that vivisection is not needed, all you are doing is citing opinion. I wish there was an alternative but the isn't at this time that has been scientifically proven to completely replace all vivisections. I know they are working one of many, but nothing conclusive or have completed their studies.
Some form of animal testing is required before human trials. And I'm glad they do before I'm a member of human trials.
Sadly, groups like PETA are delaying in ending the use of vivisection.
http://www.afma-curedisease.org/pdf/del ... ection.pdf


Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk
I have no faith in reality.
Science is a philosophy of discovery, where religion is a philosophy of ignorance.
CRasch
 
Name: Charlie Rasch
Posts: 270
Age: 39
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking PETA!

#215  Postby HughMcB » Sep 22, 2011 5:09 pm

laklak wrote:I eat meat. I fish. I hunt. I've killed any number of critters with spears, arrows, clubs and guns. I've never run one down and bashed it with a rock but I'd do that if necessary. I feel absolutely no guilt about it whatsoever. I'm the apex predator around here and they're the prey. Sucks to be them. I wear leather and fur, and couldn't give a rat's ass if some anorexic Hollywood starlet (or anyone else, for that matter) is offended by that. Tough Shit.

That said, I think that much of factory farming is unnecessarily cruel, I buy free range meat whenever possible, I keep pets I treat as family members and I abhor blood sports. If that makes me inconsistent in the eyes of vegans or PETA assholes then I can only repeat - Tough Shit. Their opinion of me means about as much as, well, I can't think of anything I care less about, actually.

This is pretty much me too. Good work old boy! :grin:
"Call Kenny Loggins...'cuz you're in the Danger Zone" - Archer
User avatar
HughMcB
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 18393
Age: 30
Male

Country: Canada
Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Debunking PETA!

#216  Postby HughMcB » Sep 22, 2011 5:09 pm

Mick wrote:I actually have no problem with ALF. Animals should not be tested on, period. Mind you, I don't mean harmless tests; I mean the sort of shit where they are in pain, considerable discomfort, or killed.

ALF?

Oh dear fuck. :doh:

At least I know now not to bother take what you say seriously.
"Call Kenny Loggins...'cuz you're in the Danger Zone" - Archer
User avatar
HughMcB
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 18393
Age: 30
Male

Country: Canada
Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking PETA!

#217  Postby HughMcB » Sep 22, 2011 5:19 pm

VictorTheSixth wrote:Props to the OP! My glass is raised to you Hugh :cheers:

Thanks. :drunk:

VictorTheSixth wrote:That said, it appears the only reason to join PETA is to have an excuse to run around naked and have pictures of you taken that will embarrass your children decades later :lol:

This was my point really, I didn't intend to pass judgement on the issue of animal rights. I merely wanted to highlight that this particular organization were full of shit.
"Call Kenny Loggins...'cuz you're in the Danger Zone" - Archer
User avatar
HughMcB
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 18393
Age: 30
Male

Country: Canada
Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking PETA!

#218  Postby HughMcB » Sep 22, 2011 5:23 pm

Mick wrote:Please check your sources. One of them explicitly states that ALF distances itself from the mentioned actions and the other does not suggest that ALF is responsible at all. It just said that ALF let them have a voice on their website, which is the exact same thing ALF did with the activists it distanced itself from.

The ALF work in distinct independent cells, a neat way to ensure full deniability.
"Call Kenny Loggins...'cuz you're in the Danger Zone" - Archer
User avatar
HughMcB
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 18393
Age: 30
Male

Country: Canada
Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking PETA!

#219  Postby johnbrandt » Sep 23, 2011 1:16 am

Personally, if it came to the point where I needed some life-saving procedure or medication, I'd prefer it had been tested on some actual animal than have the doctor say "Oh don't worry...we've run computer simulations and it should be perfectly safe..." :?
"One could spend their life looking for the perfect cherry blossom...and it would not be a wasted life"
User avatar
johnbrandt
 
Posts: 3499
Age: 49
Male

Print view this post

Re: Debunking PETA!

#220  Postby laklak » Sep 23, 2011 3:08 am

"Computer simulations". Lol. How many people here have every actually designed and written a complex software system? I don't mean some web app or DB mining system, I mean a real, live, multiple-linked-mainframe, thousand-man-year system? If you have ever managed (or even participated in) a project of that scale you would never, in 10,000 million years, trust your life to a drug trial conducted in a simulated environment. We can't keep fucking Facebook up and running on a daily basis, let alone model an incredibly complicated biological system that we don't even fully understand. It's utter nonsense, complete bullshit.

There is no system out there and no system on the horizon that will do that. How in the world can we do anything of the sort until we understand, down to a molecular level, exactly what the human body will do under any given set of inputs? FFS we don't even know how most of the medicines we use every day actually work. We have no clue. Just look up common drugs in the Physician's Desk Reference - I'll wager you will be stunned at the number of entries that say something like "the exact mechanism is unknown".

It's a scam, hokum promulgated by people and organizations with a political ax to grind.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Posts: 8851
Age: 60
Male

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to General Debunking

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest