rationalskepticism.org

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.

[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.