ARAN Support World Lab Animal Week

by Pro-Vivisection Sun May 27, 2007 14:06

The lives and well being of you fellow human beings are more important the lives and well being of dogs, mice, rats, cats, fruit flies, zebra fish, macaques, baboons, chimpanzees, horses, pigs, chickens, bees, etc.

Experiments on animals have been the driving force behind the enormous advances in modern medecine.

Your infantile sentimentality toward animals and disinterest for the plight of human beings is truly contemptible.

by Des Sun May 27, 2007 20:18

That's what the fascists said about Jews! animal rights are an important issue, my best wishes to all involved!

by wageslave Mon May 28, 2007 11:27

its all part of a deep pathology in the world today that needs addressing. Its good to see people standing up for the voiceless and weak. Thanks guys.

How come these wonderful "cures" you mention usually turn out to be merely profitable ones such as viagra variants etc. And if these large pharma companies cared so much for the weak and sick then why are they so gung ho protecting AIDS patents and preventing generic drugs being distributed in third world countries?. Seems to me all they care about is money. (they have already made plenty of money on AIDS drugs)

There are many drugs needed for the poor and sick of the third world but little "research" gets done in producing cheaper versions of basic drugs which would relieve the most suffering. Thats not profitable. It's fairly clear that morality doesn't enter into their thought processes.

Perhaps there is an argument to be made for a very limited amount of testing in such exceptional cases but there is none whatsoever to be made for the majority of unnecessary and purely for profit research that is the reality of most of the animal testing that goes on.

Even in such exceptional cases, there are other techniques that produce equally good results (they just cost more) and there is evidence that many animal tests don't translate all that well to humans.

So don't get all moralistic with me about the big pharma search for noble cures to help humanity. Large companies have no morals. They are just protecting their lucrative businesses from potential bad press. Heaven forbid the gullible public would realise what they are really like. Share prices might drop.

Big Pharm are not even remotely moral in their daily behaviour. Hence it is unreasonable of them to expect to hide behind such flimsy moral arguments. It carries no weight in their case.

here's one tiny example of GSK morality!
http://www.aegis.com/NEWS/BW/2002/BW020901.html

by Yawn - Human liberation front Mon May 28, 2007 12:26

"How come these wonderful "cures" you mention usually turn out to be merely profitable ones such as viagra variants etc."

True but thats Capitalism system for you. Unless your arguing that no new medical research should be done until we collectivise the medical industry i am not sure what your point is.

"Even in such exceptional cases, there are other techniques that produce equally good results (they just cost more) and there is evidence that many animal tests don't translate all that well to humans."

Thats interesting. Do you have any basis for those claims or is it just an assertion. I was under the impression that alot of neurological research necessiated using subjects as we don't know enough about the brain to build a virual model or whatever you feel can be done.

Also i would be interested to hear your proposals on how we could have learnt how to do transplants, and how we can hope to improve on our knowledge, without using animals as experimental subjects.

Of course an animals reaction might not be exactly similar to a humans reaction, this is sometimes the case, which is why animal testing is simply one stage in research.

Apart from that though i would be interested in hearing a argument for why animal rights matter too becuase your argument in the post above comes down to "big pharma" is mean.

by wageslave Mon May 28, 2007 17:01

If you really consider such experimentation so important to mankind then might i humbly suggest that you offer yourself up immediately to medical science as a subject for these experiments for the good of humankind. If it benefits humans then humans who believe this should volunteer to further this noble cause. Funny, when you de-contextualise these things then the rules change and suddenly many of these horrible experiments don't seem all THAT important anymore.

my guess is the number of such experiments considered absolutely necessary would diminish significantly if we tested solely on human subjects.

The acid test for me is if an experiment is so important and of benefit to mankind then humans should be willing (and allowed ) to volunteer for the good of humankind and be heroes. If they are not willing then maybe it isn't all that worthwhile a cause. People die every day in iraq to defend corporate business interests and that certainly doesn't class as a noble cause so what is the problem? People die every day for fictitious religious beliefs. People die every day from easily preventible ailments due to corporate greed. So why not for a noble cause? Some people would be very happy to have this option given what their alternative is. At least there would be some element of choice involved if we did it this way. The animals have no voice or no choice and do not benefit from the research.

you said
True but thats Capitalism system for you. Unless your arguing that no new medical research should be done until we collectivise the medical industry i am not sure what your point is.

well glad you agree that we are defending animal testing mostly for the purposes of producing more erections for old rich white men and not noble causes!

That IS essentially my point. No new animal testing should be done unless it is absolutely shown to be unavoidable and for the good of a large portion of humanity or animality, no other methods exist to do the tests , the absolute minimum of testing is performed and tests are performed only under the most "humane" (pah!) conditions. Otherwise it is morally indefensible. And most current testing, (MOST!) is morally indefensible corporate profit making related.

If we can both agree on this then we can argue about the remaining small number of animal experiments and not muddy the issue with straw men.

So, before we continue, do you agree that it is very likely that the majority of animal experiments are performed for corporate profit related motives and for products that are unnecessary or duplicated (for patent renewal / marketting motives) and not for noble causes and as such are morally indefensible? if you do not agree with this then I fear we have no common ground worth pursuing and i have other stuff to do with my time.

you said
Thats interesting. Do you have any basis for those claims or is it just an assertion.
I'm satisfied that there is evidence that such claims have merit.
I'm sure you can google at least as well as me.
Hint: try googling for "humane drug testing" or something like that

here's a few random related links to start you off, some of which mention the topic and mention alternatives. there are loads out there and probably much better ones. Let me know if you find a really good one! (won't hold my breath on that!)

http://www.peta.org/factsheet/files/FactsheetDisplay.as...ID=87

NEXUS: The Human Cost of Animal Testing
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/animaltesting.html

Drug Trial Tragedy Traced to Animal Test Failure
http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/gm06summer/drug_trial.html

here's a quote that illustrates some of the alternatives that have been formally accepted as valid:

To date, several non-animal test methods have been formally validated and accepted by some countries as replacements for an existing animal test. Examples include:

• An embryonic stem cell test, using mouse-derived cells to assess potential toxicity to developing embryos, has been validated as a partial replacement for birth-defect testing in rats and rabbits.(6)
• The 3T3 Neutral Red Uptake Phototoxicity Test, which uses cells grown in culture to assess the potential for sunlight-induced (“photo”) irritation to the skin.
• Human skin model tests such as the validated EpiDerm™ test, which has been accepted almost universally as a total replacement for skin corrosion studies in rabbits.(7)
• The use of human skin leftover from surgical procedures or donated cadavers can be used to measure the rate at which a chemical is able to penetrate the skin.
• The use of a clinical patch test in human volunteers, which can confirm that a chemical will not cause irritation or allergic skin reactions.(8)

For more detailed information about non-animal test methods that are available or under development, visit http://evcam.jrc.it and http://StopAnimalTests.com."


you said:
I was under the impression that alot of neurological research necessiated using subjects as we don't know enough about the brain to build a virual model or whatever you feel can be done.

how much of this neurological research is actually necessary? Again, if in doubt about the "importance" of some research then the acid test is " Is it necessary enough to allow us to use volunteer human subjects as it is humans who will benefit.(and give better more accurate results!!) "

If not then it can't really be all that important can it?

you said
Also i would be interested to hear your proposals on how we could have learnt how to do transplants, and how we can hope to improve on our knowledge, without using animals as experimental subjects.

I'm not really interested in revisiting the past. I'd like to deal with the current situation. Those experiments are now done and many of those operations are now routine. Not many more new experiments really needed there. I'm interested in paring animal experiments down to the bare minimum necessary.

These remaining ones we can discuss specifically but only if we agree on the fact that most current experiments don't come under the umbrella of "noble causes" but rather under other umbrellas such as "greed","amoral capitalism" , "redundant", "ineffective"

Personally I feel that, while worthwhile, transplants benefit only a very few people in the very richest segment of mankind. If you are poor and need a transplant, you usually just go on a long queue (if you are lucky!) and die. So who is this expensive medecine really for? And is it worth large scale animal sacrifice if it only benefits a very few rich people?. and as mentioned, if this research was really so important then why could we not have allowed human volunteers ?

you probably won't want to read this since it is from PETA but it points out that a lot of the stuff that REALLY benefitted mankind didn't actually require animal testing. some other good points relevant to the debate too.
http://www.peta.org/about/faq-viv.asp

as an aside, If it is true that lots of new animal experiments are really still necessary for those standard routine transplants we supposedly already know about and offer in our western hospitals then why are we allowed perform these operations in our hospitals at all?. Obviously we don't really know what we are doing yet if we are still in the experimental stage and require lots more animal tests.

I'm not a medical researcher so I don't know but I suspect currently, transplant testing is just a very small fraction of the animal testing that goes on. If there is no viable alternatives I'd consider it on a highly regulated non profit "open source research" last resort basis. And a lot of related medical training at the early stages could probably be replaced by virtual reality technology.

you said
"Apart from that though i would be interested in hearing a argument for why animal rights matter too because your argument in the post above comes down to "big pharma" is mean.

My point IS mainly that big pharma is bad. They are responsible for a large number of superfluous animal experiments for unnecessary profit making products of little benefit for most of humanity. These should be stopped immediately as they are morally indefensible.

You wanted an argument for animal rights:
Ok, If, in this meaningless arbitrary universe you find yourself in, you arbitrarily choose to have the following 2 things as base premises for your own personal ethical framework that you choose to live by
(1) that life is a valuable thing
(2) that suffering is a bad thing
it follows fairly logically that you should have regard for other life forms unless it comes down to an unavoidable "them or us" scenario. Thats my personal argument for animal rights.

If you choose not to have those two items as premises in your personal ethical framework that you live by then we have nothing to talk about (and you should consider the possibility that you may be a sociopath! :)

I am prepared to entertain the argument for a (very)few animal tests for very specific things which are purely for the good of a very large number of humanity / animality where no alternative test is possible and the animal test is actually likely to give worthwhile results.

But how many animal tests fall into this category? Very few i suspect. Yet this is the standard argument used to maintain the current status quo (and help perpetuate innumerable cruel and unnecessary experiments for a myriad of duplicate cosmetic, consumer and drug related products and for the purposes of corporate patent renewal and profit ) and the truth is this argument really only applies in a very small proportion of animal experiments.

It kinda reminds me of the "support our troops" argument whose real function is to shut down reasonable debate on the iraq war. Superficially it seems to have merit but really
it's just pure sophistry designed to muddy the water and buy time while vested interests get on with their nefarious activities.

by R. Isible Mon May 28, 2007 17:52

If you really consider such experimentation so important to mankind then might i humbly suggest that you offer yourself up immediately to medical science as a subject for these experiments for the good of humankind. If it benefits humans then humans who believe this should volunteer to further this noble cause.
That only makes sense if you think that animals are equivalent to humans in terms of sentience.
What about people that don't want to suffer and also believe that animals are not as important as humans? It doesn't make much sense for them to volunteer to undergo pain.
Just to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you, would you have said that TypeI diabetics dependent on porcine insulin (prior to the development of recombinant insulin expressed in E.coli which was tested on a vast number of animals) should have died because they're lives were woth the same as a pigs?
What about all the people that die (and it's going to increase because of the overpresecription of anitbiotics) from S. aureus infections? Do we have to stop all the useful tests on rabbits and instead wait for volunteers to trickle forward?
Animal testing of non-essential (cosmetic and reformulation) products should not be allowed, but there are lots of valid, worthwhile, life-enhancing experiments that can be carried out only on animals.

Funny, when you de-contextualise these things then the rules change and suddenly many of these horrible experiments don't seem all THAT important anymore.,
Funny, how when you accept ludicrous premises then suddenly you end up with a ludicrous conclusion.

by wageslave Mon May 28, 2007 20:45

That only makes sense if you think that animals are equivalent to humans in terms of sentience.

that ONLY makes sense if....???? excuse me sir, there are other instances where it would make sense. If i thought animals were equivalent to humans in some other way it would also make sense. For example I might consider they were equivalent to humans in their basic right to live out their life (however valueless you might consider it on your sentience scale) without imposed suffering and untimely imposed death

And why is sentience your only possible criteria for applying a value to life?
if some superior alien with a penchant for human flesh and a vastly superior intellect were to come to earth, I wonder how we would revise our position on the whole sentience thing? I'm sure the arguments for not exploiting living creatures (us) would start to encompass other qualities once our own intellects were found lacking.

Fat lot of good our "sentience" seems to be doing us in our stewardship of the planet! Is our sentience really all that great? especially if we don't take the moral responsibility for our actions that should accompany such sentience. And clearly in most cases we don't. So whats that sentience really worth? not a lot I would suggest! Look around you sometime. Don't see all that much sentience. And are you suggesting the people who voted fianna fail back into government are much more sentient than a bonobo ape? thats pushing it don't you think!! :) And bonobos have lots of personality too! I met quite a few FF voters at the count. Bonobos win hands down in my book.

Ok, tell me mr R.Isible, where do down syndrome children fit into your assessment? Some would say not all that sentient in many ways.
I know there are bonobo apes with more smarts than some such humans. do you move your "sentience" goalposts for those? On what basis? Why not use them for experiments? So much for sentience as the sole criteria with which to place value on life. Perhaps re-evaluating our emphasis on sentience as the only criteria worthy of value is in order.

What about people that don't want to suffer and also believe that animals are not as important as humans?

what about them? ok there are selfish gits with a low opinion of animals in the world. This is obvious but it is not really an argument.

It doesn't make much sense for them to volunteer to undergo pain.

no it doesn't. Neither does it give them the right to make other creatures do their proxy suffering for them. But then again thats what the term "VOLUNTEER" means. You have the choice. nobody will force them. unlike the animals who have no such freedom.

Just to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you, would you have said that TypeI diabetics dependent on porcine insulin (prior to the development of recombinant insulin expressed in E.coli which was tested on a vast number of animals) should have died because they're lives were woth the same as a pigs?

No, I'm saying that if relieving this condition was really so important to humans, then to develop a cure, humans should have been allowed to volunteer for the necessary experiments to produce a cure, or in this case, if it were feasible, to volunteer to donate insulin. If nobody considered it worth volunteering for these things then why should should some other species be forced to either. At least humans have a choice to volunteer and it is humanity that would benefit.

Is there no way that humans could have possibly donated insulin? I'm sure if we looked into it and made an effort, we might have come up with something. but of course we probably didn't expend the money or effort because the way things were we could freely and cheaply exploit animals without any reprocussions.

I said I would consider a few animal tests as a last resort having exhausted all other avenues,. IMHO only then is such an option morally valid and only within very strict conditions. For example, in the case of the insulin, people should have only been supplied with the bare minimum amount of insulin necessary to survive. However humans being humans, I suspect they probably used it freely. Such is the selfish nature of humanity. This kind of an approach, if truly the case, was certainly not moral and resulted in unnecessary death to donor pigs. Personally I would place a value on their lives too and would expect a litle gratitude and a large effort on the part of the receivers to minimise their insulin use and hence pig deaths while scientists meanwhile worked hard on an alternative to remove the necessity for those deaths. Of course this is not likely how things panned out.

There are ways of approaching such ethically challenging situations. I would assert that humans do not approach such situations in a moral fashion where animals are concerned and this is morally wrong. They rarely bother to balance the immorality of taking the life of another creature with their own needs. Humans tend to see animals as objects or commodities for our consumption. some sort of pathetic unenlightened self serving biblical throwback perhaps? But the fact is they are all individual living entities. We should never forget this.

What about all the people that die (and it's going to increase because of the overpresecription of anitbiotics) from S. aureus infections? Do we have to stop all the useful tests on rabbits and instead wait for volunteers to trickle forward?

in a nutshell, IMHO yes. Its our problem. And largely brought about by our lack of "sentience" on the proper use of antibiotics. So, we should solve it ourselves it if is really that important.

Anyway don't get all holier than thou with me, pretending human life is really valued all that much these days. I'm sure some people would be happy for a more noble end than that meted out to them in many parts of the world by our sentience-powered global capitalism. You only need to look to iraq. Sentience indeed!

Animal testing of non-essential (cosmetic and reformulation) products should not be allowed, but there are lots of valid, worthwhile, life-enhancing experiments that can be carried out only on animals.
Hmmm...perhaps there are a few but really I think the majority fall into the duplicated / patent re-inforcing / cosmetic / consumer product / toxic cleaning product testing variety and only a small percentage fall under the "noble causes" umbrella.

Like i said before, I'm prepared to consider those ones on a proven necessity / no equivalent testing option, "open source" and wide benefit to humanity basis but I suspect there aren't really all that many of those cases. And ideally in such cases I'd prefer if human volunteers shared the task if it really mattered so much to humanity. This would certainly serve to reduce the instances of frivolous and careless experiments.

My problem is really with the superfluous profit motive product testing which constitutes the majority of animal experiments and as far as i can see, we are in agreement on that point.

Funny, how when you accept ludicrous premises then suddenly you end up with a ludicrous conclusion
Funny when someone runs out of decent things to say, they resort to abuse. You're ludicrous, I'm ludicrous. Well that certainly advances the discussion in a useful direction.

and Which premise are you calling ludicrous? the premise that animals have a right to live out their life too, even though they aren't as smart as us?

Face it, it really comes down to this. You are something of a speciesist and you think humans are the dogs bollocks and i do not. And until humans start earning my respect and showing me that they are truly sentient by treating other creatures, each other and the environment with some measure of respect, i feel free not to have all that much respect for them on the whole and will continue to believe that other creatures are equally worthy of respect even though they don't watch american idol, use a mobile phone and vote fianna fail.

When humans start to show me that their sentience makes them truly better , rather than just magnifying their innate greed, cruelty and selfishness, then I may choose to re-evaluate this opinion. i know what they are potentially capable of through the noble actions of certain individual humans. it's just that sadly they rarely bother to live up to any of that potential and frankly I see more noble qualities in my dog (honesty, loyalty, parental duty, etc) than in most humans.

by slave Mon May 28, 2007 21:23

Wise up wage slave

Who the fuck do you think is gonna listen to you spout anti-human (!!) gibberish? Do you really believe that's a solid foundation for any type of political belief?

It's worse than Catholicism: "alright, listen, you're shit, and until you prove to me, a wacky primmo, that you're worthy, you will be considered lower than a dog. Or whatever. Interested in coming on board?"

Yea good luck with that.

And good luck not taking any medication or ever using antibacterial products cos that'd be speciesist, now wouldn't it?

And to the person who compared animal rights issues to the Holocaust: you are absolute scum. Your retarded interpretation of the world is not only hideously stupid, but it is an offence to everyone who suffered at the hands of the Nazis.

by R. Isible Mon May 28, 2007 23:15

Face it, it really comes down to this. You are something of a speciesist

I'm not "something" of a speciesist. I'm a complete Paid-Up, Card-Carrying Speciesist. Given a choice between human happiness and animal happiness I'm taking the human's side every time. That includes the very large numbers of us (including yourself) who are alive and healthy only and solely because of horrendous experiments on animals, carried out since around the end of the 1890s, and current experiments carried out on the closest things that can be found to humans, yet which are not humans.

The "ludicrous" premise to which I refer is that which I quoted. I did not call you ludicrous, nor indeed everything you said ludicrous. I'll quote it again for you:

f you really consider such experimentation so important to mankind then might i humbly suggest that you offer yourself up immediately to medical science as a subject for these experiments for the good of humankind. If it benefits humans then humans who believe this should volunteer to further this noble cause.

And I'll reiterate my objection: I consider such experimentation important to mankind, but I don't believe that the pain undoubtedly felt by a rabbit when a wound is created and inocculated with S.aureus is something which I wish to feel. I don't believe the rabbit has the same rights or ability to suffer as me. Hence your conclusion that I (or anyone else that supports animal experimentation) should volunteer is plainly ludicrous. It makes sense for you and anyone that shares your beliefs, but not for me.

There are a lot of other concomittants to those beliefs that I'd be very surprised if you were able to live up to them: but who knows, maybe you or your family have been lucky enough to never experience illness.
Although you admit some restricted cases where there are no alternatives to animal models, the ARAN campaign makes no such distinctions.

As regards the insulin, I'm sure if there were large numbers of people volunteering to be butchered so that their pancreas could be harvested then the unpleasant choice between Da and a Pig wouldn't have to be made, unfortunately large numbers of people are selfish and stayed at home during the last Kill Yourself To Save Animals drive.

by wageslave Tue May 29, 2007 09:54

I suggested people put themselves forward if they truly considered it important for mankind. I never suggested it be made in any way compulsory to do so! The reason I suggested this was merely to illustrate how unimportant many such experiments suddenly become to humans when it means balancing it with their own life or physical comfort. Usually the importance suddenly dissipates. However, note that people still choose to join the army. Personally I'd rather be a hero of medical science than a dead soldier defending US hegemony in iraq.

Regarding the insulin, No I was not suggesting the mass slaughter of humans and the harvesting of their pancrea. straw man. I was merely suggesting that it was not inconceivable that science could have found ways of extracting some insulin from people without killing them and taking their pancreas if the will was there. I'm sure if there were just human volunteers involved and not just pigs then we would have made the effort to extract insulin without killing the volunteers as there would be consequences. with pigs there were none so we didn't bother looking further and just killed them.

Actually I don't really wish to subject anyone to unnecessary experiments because by definition (anti-vivisectionist) I believe these to be MOSTLY (if not completely) unnecessary and cruel practices (and mainly driven by a corporate profit motive). If you recall from a previous comment, my philosophy incorporates putting value on life. Even selfish cruel human life!

My wish is not to make the idea of using human guinea pigs acceptable, but rather to work towards dispensing with the necessity for live experimentation on live animals OR humans altogether and ultimately replacing all such tests with others which don't cause any unnecessary suffering or death.

The low hanging fruit is the pointless corporate experimentation for crap we don't need like cosmetics / duplicate drugs for patent reasons etc. which probably accounts for most experimentation that occurs today and to which the "noble cause" argument clearly does not apply.
Thats the stuff I REALLY want to get a consensus on right now. When that stuff is history we are left with a few procedures which are more difficult to dismiss. Those can be discussed on a case by case basis.

And I'm sure if the will were there then with a little scientific ingenuity we could find alternatives for most of those too. But It is clear to me that people will have to put some more weight on animals rights before that will appears.

Sadly people (including posters on this thread AFAICS) still view animals as objects or commodities to be exploited and not creatures with a right to life just like us, without unnecessary human imposed suffering.

Until this attitude changes somewhat, we will not really bother to seek costly alternatives to these tests and unnecessary and cruel animal testing will be tolerated in our society, even in cases where credible alternatives DO currently exist..

I took the time to make these (rather long and somewhat rambling I admit!) posts because I feel that this cruel attitude towards the weak and voiceless is highly unethical and lessens us as "sentient" beings and it is quite a slippery slope. I strongly believe that we need to change this attitude.

If it continues to be acceptable for us to treat weaker persons or species as mere objects then what sort of "sentient" beings are we and is that what we want to be like? (and where does it lead...)

But alas we remain complicit in this behaviour on a daily basis by supporting many stupid duplicate products we really don't need, without even a moments thought for the processes and suffering involved in producing them. Surely we are better than that? Surely.... :-(

this topic is discussed in a rather humourous fashion here:
http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/330

by Yawn - HLF Tue May 29, 2007 11:18

"My wish is not to make the idea of using human guinea pigs acceptable, but rather to work towards dispensing with the necessity for live experimentation on live animals OR humans altogether and ultimately replacing all such tests with others which don't cause any unnecessary suffering or death."

And my wish is to be able to teleport at will, play in a famous rock band, get lots of money for nothing and see animal rights activist offering themselves for research instead of animals. Seeing as none of this is going to happen though how about we leave our wishes at home at stick to reality.

"Sadly people (including posters on this thread AFAICS) still view animals as objects or commodities to be exploited and not creatures with a right to life just like us, without unnecessary human imposed suffering."

Spot on. Your right i don't think animals have a right to life.
Do you think animals have a right to life or just that humans should just try and minimise their suffering?

"how much of this neurological research is actually necessary?"

That depends on how much you value the lives of people , and their families, who suffer from diseases like spina bifida, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's etc.

The argument that humans should offer themselves up for research isn't a particularly good one to be honest. Most of us value human life over animal life and as such would prefer to use an animal as a testing subject rather than a person.

"For example, in the case of the insulin, people should have only been supplied with the bare minimum amount of insulin necessary to survive"

"in a nutshell, IMHO yes. Its our problem. And largely brought about by our lack of "sentience" on the proper use of antibiotics. So, we should solve it ourselves it if is really that important."

"I see more noble qualities in my dog (honesty, loyalty, parental duty, etc) than in most humans."

Do you actually mean what you say or is this all just a stream of conciousness.

On a personal note wageslave because i just trying to work out how far you take this morality of yours.

Do you place more value on human lives than animal lives?

If not does the same apply to your family or just other peoples families?

by wageslave Tue May 29, 2007 17:35

Spot on. Your right i don't think animals have a right to life.

Not much point in us talking then. I'm sorry you feel that way

On a personal note wageslave because i just trying to work out how far you take this morality of yours. Do you place more value on human lives than animal lives?

answer: "No"

If not does the same apply to your family or just other peoples families?

er... in proper english please! thanks


And my wish is to be able to teleport at will, play in a famous rock band, get lots of money for nothing

good luck with YOUR aspirations.!!
I'll continue to have mine too no matter what callous begrudgers like you say
Unlike your (rather childish, selfish and silly ) ones, mine relate to injustices in the real world, are largely unselfish
Also unlike yours, I believe none of mine are out of the question and remain within the realm of possibility.!

by Yawn - HLF Tue May 29, 2007 18:58

Seeing as how we seemed to reject reality a while back and decided to substitute feelings and wishes thats what i am trying to find out more about.

"On a personal note wageslave because i just trying to work out how far you take this morality of yours. Do you place more value on human lives than animal lives?

answer: "No"

If not does the same apply to your family or just other peoples families?

er... in proper english please! thanks"

I'll rephrase.

If you think animal life is as important as human life i was wondering if the same applies to your family. Do you consider your dogs life to be as valuable as your brother's, father's, girl/boy friend's.

If your answer is yes well then i am not really sure the discussion can move on as clearly we have nothing in common but i will feel relieved as its clear animal rights/anti vivisectionist/anti specists (sorry to lump them all together) will never grow into a force to be worried about as your concerns and aims are completely alien to humanity and i am confident will never get a base.

If your answer is no, you consider your dads life to more valuable than your dog/ponies one, then i am wondering is it just other peoples fathers, friends and relatives that you consider to be as valuable as animals.

by wageslave Tue May 29, 2007 19:44

Both animal and human life matters to me and I endeavour to do no harm. Why is that so unreasonable to you ?

And It does not come down to a case of either x or y except in very rare (and usually hypothetical) circumstances. Thats just a straw man argument.

ok if you want to be silly, if my girlfriend and I were on a desert island and i could eat my girlfriend or a sheep, I'd eat my girlfriend. wouldn't you? :)

Relax mr yawn, no need to feel threatened by the existence of anti-vivisectionists. There's lots and lots of other cruel unempathetic people like you in the world who care little for most of the life on the planet that doesn't watch xfactor and use mobile phones, and it seems, a much smaller proportion of people that actually try to live and let live and appreciate the very real way we are interconnected to the other life on the planet and have a good deal of respect for its right to exist, and value it above the availability in every chemist of lots of different shades of lipstick.

It's clear that you and I have nothing further to discuss. yawn indeed.

by Yawn Tue May 29, 2007 20:11

"And It does not come down to a case of either x or y except in very rare (and usually hypothetical) circumstances. Thats just a straw man argument."

This is clearly a case of x or y. As i pointed out, just as an example, alot of neurological research needs to use animal testing as does developments in transplant technology etc. The idea that we sit around and wait for science to improve condemns millions of people to unnecessary pain and decreased quality of life.

Don't confuse love for humanity with a lack of empathy.

by wageslave Tue May 29, 2007 21:51

when i said
"It does not come down to a case of either x or y except in very rare (and usually hypothetical) circumstances."

I was referring to your daft personal question to me as to whether I would consider my dads life to be more valuable than my dog/ponies.

You are just wilfully misunderstanding me for the purposes of building your straw man.

regarding the lack of animal tests (while we await alternative tests not in involving animals) leading to millions of people (lets not be dramatic here!) suffering,

Well firstly, I already pointed out that there are already quite a few medically accepted alternative testing methods and I gave you a link to a respectable site outlining some of these.
http://evcam.jrc.it

Secondly, If you'd bothered to read my comments, you'd see that my emphasis has been on the fact that we need to get rid of all UNNECESSARY animal testing for superfluous or duplicate products, cosmetics, new versions of drugs re-jigged purely to renew patents or pointless profit making consumer crap like fucking DRAIN CLEANER or toilet duck

You wilfully choose to ignore that fact too.

As i said before I am open to there being the bare minimum of tests for very limited sorts of things for which no alternative testing method is reasonably possible and which will relieve serious kinds of suffering for a large number of people and not just a very small number of rich white ones, and only if the results from such animal tests are of the "open source" kind and available to all of humanity and not patented for profit by a large company.

But these kinds of tests only constitute a very small percentage of the huge number of pointless and cruel tests performed on animals today. Most of those can go without causing any suffering

Face it, not all testing is done for the sake of relieving deep human suffering yet this seems to be the only argument people can muster to hide the atrocities involved in routine animal testing for unnecessary products for profit.

and if people don't have 100 different toilet cleaners on the shelf because testing isn't allowed for such stuff anymore well boo fucking hoo.

Are you really saying that all these pointless unnecessary household products are worth thousands of animal lives?

So much for the gift of sentience and the moral responsibility that should accompany it!

by Yawn Tue May 29, 2007 22:45

Sorry if i misunderstood wage slave.

When you said

“how much of this neurological research is actually necessary? Again, if in doubt about the "importance" of some research then the acid test is " Is it necessary enough to allow us to use volunteer human subjects as it is humans who will benefit.(and give better more accurate results!!) “

“For example, in the case of the insulin, people should have only been supplied with the bare minimum amount of insulin necessary to survive.”

“Q: What about all the people that die (and it's going to increase because of the overpresecription of anitbiotics) from S. aureus infections? Do we have to stop all the useful tests on rabbits and instead wait for volunteers to trickle forward?

A: in a nutshell, IMHO yes. Its our problem. And largely brought about by our lack of "sentience" on the proper use of antibiotics. So, we should solve it ourselves it if is really that important.”

And so on... I somehow got the impression that you considered animal life to be at least equally valuable to human life. However these are accompanied by other statements that say you support vivisection when it is necessary. It seemed you were a bit confused on the issue so i asked for clarification. Apologies if you considered this a strawman but i would like you to give an answer.

“As i said before I am open to there being the bare minimum of tests for very limited sorts of things for which no alternative testing method is reasonably possible and which will relieve serious kinds of suffering for a large number of people and not just a very small number of rich white ones”

1: It’s not a very limited number of things

2: Why a large number of people? Should we not use animal testing, if necessary, to cure rare diseases that cause pain to their suffers?

3: I recognise that most of the comforts that we have in the world today are denied to the majority of the worlds population. However the idea that because everyone doesn’t get access to medicine we shouldn’t try to develop new medicines is a bit odd. Surely the argument is to provide the best quality health care to everybody.

“Well firstly, I already pointed out that there are already quite a few medically accepted alternative testing methods and I gave you a link to a respectable site outlining some of these.”

That site has very few scientifically proven methods, most of which concern skin irritation and eye irritation. I fully accept that there is certain medical research in which a more accurate result can be achieved by using non-animal methods. But as I pointed out there are many which necessitate research on animals.

“Face it, not all testing is done for the sake of relieving deep human suffering yet this seems to be the only argument people can muster to hide the atrocities involved in routine animal testing for unnecessary products for profit.”.. “Are you really saying that all these pointless unnecessary household products are worth thousands of animal lives?”

For the argument it would suit me far better and join in a moral condemnation of animal testing for shampoos but to be honest I am not really sure. I don’t really put any value on animal’s lives outside their use to me and humanity as a whole. While i don’t like seeing an animal in pain, and feel a bit queasy about it, to be honest i don’t really care about knowing it goes on around me.

On a more general note i have far less of a problem with your position (animal testing is mean and we should try to avoid it) and ARANs approach which opposes all animal testing in all circumstances. Yours strikes me as harmless enough while theirs condemns millions of peoples relatives and loved ones to suffering to stop puppies getting hurt. In my opinion they are beyond contempt.

by wageslave Wed May 30, 2007 12:13

For the argument it would suit me far better and join in a moral condemnation of animal testing for shampoos but to be honest I am not really sure. I don’t really put any value on animal’s lives outside their use to me and humanity as a whole. While i don’t like seeing an animal in pain, and feel a bit queasy about it, to be honest i don’t really care about knowing it goes on around me.

Well It's a bit more than that. You actively go on a public forum trying to justify this atrocity for the purposes of products such as duplicate cosmetics and shampoos. Your moral compass is truly fucked sir!

And please do not try to dilute my position. Whilst it is not exactly the same as ARAN's, I would like to believe I have more in common with those good people who get up and actively strive to right a serious wrong than with people like yourself who try to maintain an abhorrent status quo.

I am not saying "animal testing is mean". I am saying "animal testing is a large scale atrocity being silently perpetrated by mankind on other animals purely for profit and with no consideration for what is morally right", and MOST of this testing could be stopped tomorrow without undue suffering on the part of mankind

regarding the rabbits. to clarify. You are of course talking about MRSA and AFAIK in such cases you can test the efficacy of various drugs using cultures or cell tests without requiring lots of rabbits to be killed unnecessarily, so yes we should solve that one ourselves without unnecessary animal testing or human testing.

You see, if the will is there, then on a case by case basis it is possible to reduce the necessity for many / most tests. Often It's just that there is no need to change an unspoken modus operandi when there is no pressure to do so. Which is the situation that exists when animal life if considered merely a commodity.

The animal rights movements, while some would not agree totally with some of their positions, serve the admirable purpose of highlighting the worth of animal life and their continued activity in our society creates a pressure to look for alternatives and question the morality of such experiments.
As such they are a force for good in our society in that they keep us from falling totally off the moral tracks. And we all know how far we are capable of falling off the moral tracks when it comes to experimentation don't we?

So people should give animal rights movements as much support as they can in the interests of maintaining a healthy society

Also, regarding anti-biotics, we bring that particular problem on ourselves. In my book, misuse of antibiotics is immoral if it leads to the deaths of animal testing subjects as a consequence.

And let's not forget how the large scale misuse of anti-biotics in factory farming leads to the production of such resistant strains. These anti biotics are needed in factory farms because the conditions are so awful and badly regulated that a large number of the animals would die if not fed a steady stream of anti-biotics. But I'm sure you are happy enough about that situation too as you scoff your McDonalds McFuckMoralityBurger

Many of these things are related. Perhaps there would be less suffering of humans due to resistant strains of bacteria and consequently less need for testing of new anti-biotics if we got our animal cruelty house in order elsewhere. But I don't see people like you coming out on those issues. Even though they lead to harm for humans too.

In my experience, people like yourself tend to be very selective in the choice of moral issues which you will argue about and the particular positions you will take on those issues.

If you truly are a moral person then this highly selective behaviour should not exist. You would realise that many of these issues are highly connected and often both animal cruelty and human suffering are caused by the same aspects of global capitalism.
We should be on the same side more often than not if you truly love humanity as you say.

Instead, you merely remind me of the "pro-lifers" who don't come out against the iraq war

very suspect.

by R. Isible Wed May 30, 2007 15:13

For the argument it would suit me far better and join in a moral condemnation of animal testing for shampoos but to be honest I am not really sure. I don’t really put any value on animal’s lives outside their use to me and humanity as a whole. While i don’t like seeing an animal in pain, and feel a bit queasy about it, to be honest i don’t really care about knowing it goes on around me.

I'd like to make sure that the position which I outlined is seen as distinct from the above. It is possible to believe that animal suffering is worth less than human suffering and that there are large numbers of animal experiments which are necessary to reduce human suffering and yet not ascribe to the position above. Instead I'd argue that animal suffering can be horrific and should not be countenanced except where it's necessary (and that doesn't include cosmetics and reformulation for solely commercial purposes).

Some of the largest places where animal experimentation occurs have had policies in place since at least the 90's (mostly in response to animal liberation activists following Peter Singer's ideas) which seek to reduce the unnecessary use of animals (there are reasons of reproducibility, and accuracy of the models as pointed out above by wageslave), but it's still a long way from tissue cultures to the being able to simulate the complexity of a living organism. Until then it's often necessary to do some cruel things in order to avoid a greater cruelty to sick humans.

by R. Isible Wed May 30, 2007 15:26

regarding the rabbits. to clarify. You are of course talking about MRSA and AFAIK in such cases you can test the efficacy of various drugs using cultures or cell tests without requiring lots of rabbits to be killed unnecessarily

Actually no. You can do very limited testing of some types of antibiotics, but in order to get an idea of which of the massive numbers of incompletely understood parts of the mammalian body might also be affected by such a drug there's no recourse except to an animal model at the moment.

by wageslave Thu May 31, 2007 02:33

R.Isible:
Relieved to hear yawn is not your sock! Naturally I'd expect a bit better from you :) He did embody an interesting mix of politeness, sarcasm, honesty and psychopathy though don't you agree.

Well like I said (several times!) we can probably get rid of MOST testing. Perhaps not those tests where there are truly no possible alternatives (though there is always a moral imperative on us to seek them!) and if such tests will likely result in the relief of major suffering in a large number of people / animals (and not just a bad case of diarrohea in a privileged few) and if the results of such testing are "open source". i.e. available to all humanity and not patented and if the tests give truly meaningful results for the human case (which as you say, is far from a given).

However, I contest the basic assumption which people putting forward this argument make, i.e. that the majority of tests occurring today come under the umberella of "the noble cause".

I believe most testing that occurs today is purely for profit driven motives and merely tries to hide under the umbrella of this, the only reasonable argument that can be mustered. Such tests haven't a moral leg to stand on.

From your post, It seems we are in agreement on this point. I'm glad to hear it.

My jury is still out on the rabbits / MRSA thing.

Would you accept that we are morally obliged to take strong steps to prevent the misuse of anti-biotics among humans thus preventing the necessity for further testing and that we are also morally obliged to take VERY strong steps to cut out anti-biotics misuse in factory farming, preferably by changing the whole factory farming model in a fundamental way?. (quite aside from the fact that it is in our own interests anyway)

I mention this because our negligence in the use of anti-biotics necessitates further testing and if we have not taken all reasonable steps to prevent this scenario then IMHO such further testing on animals is not morally acceptable and I would further argue that it is NOT covered under the umbrella of the "noble cause" argument.

In fact, might I suggest that it would be more moral if such further tests were performed on offending owners of factory farms!!! :)

Many people believe that bird flu originated from dodgy factory farm practices. And mad cow disease certainly did. I strongly urge people to watch some videos on factory farming to see the true horrors committed so that they can have crappy fast food.

there are links to some on this site
http://manesandtailsorganization.org/factory_farming.htm

The MEATRIX :)
http://www.themeatrix.com/

As I mentioned before, these issues are often highly connected and relate to problems with global capitalism. A nexus where human welfare and animal welfare often coincide

kinda funny on related topic :)
http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/330

by R. Isible Thu May 31, 2007 03:32

Except on the (hopefully humorous?) idea about testing drugs on factory owners, I'd agree with the vast majority of your post, especially the bits about factory farming and the misuse of antibiotics.

The problem is that rabbits/MRSA is just one example. There are a lot of other necessary tests (of nearly any new drug) which in order to avoid animal testing would mean that we would need complete functioning theoretical models of the biochemistry and physiology of humans. I think a lot of people assume that scientific progress has been more rapid than it has because of sensational reports of what is in effect a data gathering phase and some incredible modeling of specific subsystems that are obviously important. Hopefully at some stage animal tests can be eliminated, but that's not the case now.

I don't know what percentage of current tests are frivolous and unneeded, but would be strongly in favour of reducing them.

Also, avian flu probably occurs naturally due to the proximity of birds to pigs, factory farming is not necessary for it. Probably origins include small holdings where people eking out a living need to practice mixed farming methods.

by wageslave Thu May 31, 2007 15:27

The problem is that rabbits/MRSA is just one example. There are a lot of other necessary tests (of nearly any new drug) which in order to avoid animal testing would mean that we would need complete functioning theoretical models of the biochemistry and physiology of humans

Logically, If we don't properly understand human biochemistry, or animal biochemistry as you say, then how can we truly justify whether a particular animal test is actually worth doing at all? Who makes this call? By this token a human volunteer test is the only one we can currently place any reasonable value on.

And many of these new drugs you allude to, well they are often worse than the ailments (if there actually is a real ailment. New ones seem to be appear out of nowhere all the time) Big pharm and their henchmen, the greedy GP's are pushing new drugs like sweeties for everything and anything these days. Its huge business.

on that issue, this is interesting:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244

He states that big pharm don't innovate all that much but tend to produce a lot of "me too" drugs (all of which need animal tests). also that they do a lot of molecule jiggling for patent purposes. Have a read.

And we really don't need half the stuff they push
http://www.newstarget.com/020345.html

And as for side effects and rigorous testing, well when this much money is at stake, kinda hard to keep them on the straight and narrow, and the painful deaths of a few million animals (who will never bring a class action) don't even enter into the equation .

Nasty people. And they don't stop at fucking over the animals.
http://www.pressureworks.org/focus/hiv/Story/290306_pha....html

These are the scum you are doing free PR for with some of these arguments

on another of your points:
Also, avian flu probably occurs naturally due to the proximity of birds to pigs, factory farming is not necessary for it.

Hmm. not sure i agree with that. After the "wild goose chase" ( i.e. the scapegoating of natural birds etc.), it transpired that the trail of avian flu lead mainly to asian high intensity factory farms.

http://www.grain.org/briefings/?id=194

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article356440.ece

Of course, in their unbridled sociopathic greed, the probable perpetrators tried to capitalise on the situation by regulating and pushing out small farmers, with the tacit support of many governments and the media.

How many clips of people in protective suits killing off poor peoples chickens and wild birds did you see? I saw plenty. I didn't see any clips of the overcrowded and horrible factory farming conditions of chickens though. curious that.

Best always to ask yourself where the money is before you accept what the media want you to believe.

by R. Isible Thu May 31, 2007 18:36

These are the scum you are doing free PR for with some of these arguments

And there ends any interest I have in continuing to communicate on this issue. If we go down this road then I can argue that you're giving free PR to all sorts of scum that share your belief that animals share the same rights as humans. There are a lot of people that share that belief and I'd assume that you'll find some of your bedmates a bit embarrasing.

by wageslave Thu May 31, 2007 19:42

well any company who lets many people die from AIDS because they want to maintain their lucrative patents is not moral in my book. In fact calling them scum is probably rather mild considering their evil behaviour..

You berate me for calling them scum yet there you are in the next breath calling me an extremist. How ironic. And yet I have never harmed anybody, unlike these companies.

You disappoint me sir.

by R. Isible Thu May 31, 2007 20:17

It's become quite apparent over the course of this "discussion" that you have massive contempt for other humans, saying that you feel that your dog has superior moral characteristics. I think that indicates an extremist attitude. I held off on communicating that to you despite your initial repulsive suggestions that it would be better to wait for human volunteers undergo testing. Sadly, that seems to have been a mistake.

You berate me for calling them scum yet there you are in the next breath calling me an extremist. How ironic. And yet I have never harmed anybody, unlike these companies.

I'm not objection to you calling them scum. I consider them scum, just as I consider someone that would put their dog ahead of a human scum. I do object to you smearing me by association though, and don't see how either of those actions of yours facilitates the consensus which you claim to seek to build.

Frankly, I was wavering for a little bit there, but having seen the depth of your contempt and hatred for humans revealed I think I'll leave you to discuss the issue with your dog, some fascists and some nice middle class Europeans who want to stop the dreadful natives from slaughtering whales, monkeys and elephants.

by wageslave Thu May 31, 2007 21:02

I think I'll leave you to discuss the issue with your dog, some fascists and some nice middle class Europeans who want to stop the dreadful natives from slaughtering whales, monkeys and elephants.

Whew! A lot of contempt bubbling under the surface there for someone who claims to have come to the discussion with an open mind.

Before we part ways, I'd like to point out that I did not mean to tar you with the same brush as these people and if that's how it came across then i humbly apologise. On reflection I could have phrased what i was saying more clearly. I'm glad to see that you also have a low opinion of them.

My intention was to highlight the fact that the argument you were using is the same one they use to get themselves off the hook in innumerable PR releases. I was not making an inference as to your personal character which IMHO seems quite decent.

despite what you think, as i mentioned before, i value both human and animal life and campaign for issues concerning both. I think that amounts to being morally consistent. nothing more.

And my dog IS loyal affectionate and caring to her offspring and doesn't harm anyone. I would consider those good qualities. wouldn't you? :)

gotta go feed her and chat with some of my middle class animal liberation, fascist and eco-terrorist friends now so best of luck then...

http://www.counterpunch.org/donnelly05262007.html

by VideoGamer Mon Jun 18, 2007 02:48

Kanzi gets hi-score at Ms Pacman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7ttRaXlnfs

Seems this ape has the intelligence of the average middle american teen heavy metal fan. And probably a higher score at pacman!! Nicer personality than many of 'em too.
So, should we pump him full of chemical shite until he dies for a new shade of lipstick?

some more on kanzi:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=55...03685

Does this this pea brained parrot have any of that sentience?. Regardless of that, should we pump him full of chemical shite until he dies for a new shade of lipstick too?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZrk6bSz3Ro&mode=related...arch=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7i9jZNngrg
and this is a really tiny brain we're talking about!

Here's what I'm referring to. Links on Animal testing / the LD50 test
http://www.hsus.org/animals_in_research/animal_testing/...sues/
http://www.hsus.org/animals_in_research/animal_testing/....html

Most humans indirectly support these grubby cruel business practices by our purchases, who we elect, and mostly by our silence in defence of the weak and voiceless, despite our trumpetted superiority. With Sentience comes moral responsibility. If We do not act on that , what good is sentience?

Here's some of that wonderful sentience people talk about in action.

Whats for dinner darling??
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-79606879764016...01534

Perhaps we should eat out?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MY2zgcOs9Q

Would you like a fur coat honey?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLeQBhsqprs

Yes darling, I just have to clear the drain, spray the bugs, clean the kitchen floor, then when I am finished I will try it on with my nice new animal tested makeup
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YdPp7lzPzk

Now a word from those "evil terrorists", the animal liberation front:

Huntington animal sciences
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDuZIDvulzU&mode=related...arch=

not often mentioned in such discussions but the military conduct a lot of animal tests, often in secret, not answerable to the public and IMHO definitely not for the health and benefit of humankind or democracy

Hmm, those evil animal "terrorists" are getting out of hand. We need some
tazer experiments on pigs to perfect our proportionate response to legitimate democratic protest. (okay okay apart from that evil terrorist use of paint!)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-304248985242699498

I'll bet the farm that they are testing all these weapons on animals too.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/nonlethalweaponsnewsarticles

If so, would these animal tests be considered crucial to the welfare and health of humankind? (or democracy for that matter)

Surely animal and human rights activists can at least join up and support each other on common ground issues like these? If we were truly sentient we might!!!

A few interesting links on GSK and media treatment of animal rights activists here
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76191

Happy viewing
VG.

Ps: even if you don't give a shit about animals (and most people don't, I know) you should still check out the monkey, parrot and non lethal weapons links.

smarter than the US president. And a higher score at ms pacman too!

some days are a waste of makeup

by Laura Wed Jun 20, 2007 16:41

this is a very worth while campaign to support against animal testing. I think you guys at aran and other grops in ireland that help animals are all doing a great job :-)

by taylor (veganAtor____idk) Tue Jul 24, 2007 02:15

in 9 grade i did my freshman paper on animal experimentation...of course i already know that testing on animals is wrong but i found out multiple facts about the experiments being held that i had not known before the research...its a horrible crime being convicted..it is a law about cruelty to animals...what the scientists in these labs are doing is deffinetly considered to be cruelty to animals..animals themselves are the same as humans, but with fur and claws and etc.... i am curently a strict vegetarian, i do not use products that have been testing on animals and i also volunteer at animal shelters....adopting or fostering animals without homes

by taylor ( veganAtor____idk) Tue Jul 24, 2007 02:23

how dare you say that animals dont have the right to live....they have as much right to live as you do..if they dont have the right to live, then why should you

ps: right on yawn!!!!! im with you all the way man