Posted: 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.
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.
[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:You've honestly never heard 'murder' being used strictly in the moral sense? Are you new here?
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.
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.