Animal Testing. - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 06-15-2004, 10:32 AM
Banned
 
Tame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,022
Please continue the debate from the AR & W thread here.



And my 2 cents...



Couloir - you have stated that your dictionary has a definition of "terrorism" that would define researchers who use animals for testing as terrorists. I would just love to see what dictionary has stretched the definition that much.



I haven't found one myself.



http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...y&va=terrorism



http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism



http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/t/t0122600.html



http://dictionary.cambridge.org/defi...2104&dict=CALD



http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...fid=1861719276



http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.p...atchtype=exact



Don't make stuff up, as I will call you on it.
Tame is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 06-15-2004, 10:46 AM
Veggie Regular
 
kpickell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 16,090
I don't understand how they could be seen as terrorists. They don't have an ideological belief that they are trying to impose on people by scaring them into change. They are trying to develop cures to medical illness to save lives. They don't even attempt to scare the animals because animals with elevated heart rates would skew the data.
kpickell is offline  
#3 Old 06-15-2004, 11:06 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpickell View Post

I don't understand how they could be seen as terrorists. They don't have an ideological belief that they are trying to impose on people by scaring them into change. They are trying to develop cures to medical illness to save lives. They don't even attempt to scare the animals because animals with elevated heart rates would skew the data.



An interesting notion: the above can be used to defend the idea why a lot of property damaging that the ALF does shouldn't be called terrorism.



(I'm not expressing any position about this or that in this case, just making an observation.)

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#4 Old 06-15-2004, 11:26 AM
Banned
 
Tame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

An interesting notion: the above can be used to defend the idea why a lot of property damaging that the ALF does shouldn't be called terrorism.



No, as ALF is engaged in activities to cause harm they oppose due to differences in ideology.



The promotion of animal rights is a political cause. According to the numerous definitions I have provided above, ALF/ELF are terrorists.
Tame is offline  
#5 Old 06-15-2004, 12:47 PM
Newbie
 
FlipFlop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 31
Quote:
No, as ALF is engaged in activities to cause harm they oppose due to differences in ideology.



The promotion of animal rights is a political cause. According to the numerous definitions I have provided above, ALF/ELF are terrorists.



Promotional of human rights is a political cause. So, people who fought in WW2 (against Germany and Japan) were terrorists.
FlipFlop is offline  
#6 Old 06-15-2004, 01:09 PM
Banned
 
Tame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlipFlop View Post

Promotional of human rights is a political cause. So, people who fought in WW2 (against Germany and Japan) were terrorists.



Refer to the dictionary definitions. Really, the links do not hurt.
Tame is offline  
#7 Old 06-15-2004, 01:37 PM
Banned
 
Couloir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlipFlop View Post

Promotional of human rights is a political cause. So, people who fought in WW2 (against Germany and Japan) were terrorists.



Good point.



The freedom fighters clandestinely killing Nazis and ruining gas chambers before the invasion were "domestic terrorists," too. Per your definition, Tame: They were against the policies of their country and using violence to protest.
Couloir is offline  
#8 Old 06-15-2004, 02:11 PM
Banned
 
Tame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Couloir View Post

Good point.



The freedom fighters clandestinely killing Nazis and ruining gas chambers before the invasion were "domestic terrorists," too. Per your definition, Tame: They were against the policies of their country and using violence to protest.



No, that wasn't a good point, as soldiers in a declared war are not considered terrorists.

Otherwise, yes, the Nazis would have viewed those opposed to them as something similar to terrorists.

BTW, it's not my definition, those are from dictionaries. Dictionaries. Many people use those rather than making up their own (wrong) definitions.
Tame is offline  
#9 Old 06-15-2004, 06:01 PM
Banned
 
Couloir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 66
My point is primarily that calling a group like the ALF or SHAC terrorists, freedom fighters, or neither, is a matter of perspective, not solely dictionary definitions. To those who profit from animal torture, property damage to lab equipment and buildings is terrorism. To those who believe that animal tests are unnecessary, horrific, and morally repugnant, property damage to torture chambers is a compassionate act of freedom fighting. To one side they are the enemy and to the other side they are the heroes. If you are a researcher, you despise them. If you are a tortured animal (and know what they are trying to do for you), you love them.



Personally, I would never do any property damage, not even minor it is not in my nature, but I do not condemn it either, given my knowledge of the extreme violence and torture inflicted on helpless victims for no good reason. I will just continue to bear witness and write about how horrible animal testing is and how ethically blind researchers are. It is my deepest hope that all property damage and animal torture end as soon as possible. Until then, I will keep writing and speaking as a non-militant activist / advocate. What militant activists do is up to them.
Couloir is offline  
#10 Old 06-15-2004, 06:06 PM
Veggie Regular
 
schu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tame View Post

No, that wasn't a good point, as soldiers in a declared war are not considered terrorists.

Otherwise, yes, the Nazis would have viewed those opposed to them as something similar to terrorists.

BTW, it's not my definition, those are from dictionaries. Dictionaries. Many people use those rather than making up their own (wrong) definitions.



I see what you are saying, but you are also allowing the government to define terrorist and redefine it as they please.
schu is offline  
#11 Old 06-15-2004, 06:36 PM
Banned
 
Tame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Couloir View Post

My point is primarily that calling a group like the ALF or SHAC terrorists, freedom fighters, or neither, is a matter of perspective, not solely dictionary definitions. To those who profit from animal torture, property damage to lab equipment and buildings is terrorism. To those who believe that animal tests are unnecessary, horrific, and morally repugnant, property damage to torture chambers is a compassionate act of freedom fighting. To one side they are the enemy and to the other side they are the heroes. If you are a researcher, you despise them. If you are a tortured animal (and know what they are trying to do for you), you love them.





They do meet the dictionary definition, and Shazam!, they meet the government criteria. And yes, everything is a matter of perspective. Neo-Nazi militia members see themselves as freedom fighters as well, although the majority of society (the normal folks) disagree. Same for ALF, SHAC, and the other losers like them.

Oh, and more than just the researchers despise them. Again, it is the vast majority of society.



Of course, my original point still stands. Researchers don't meet the terrorist criteria, no matter how much you spin.
Tame is offline  
#12 Old 06-15-2004, 06:38 PM
Banned
 
Tame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by schu View Post

I see what you are saying, but you are also allowing the government to define terrorist and redefine it as they please.



I don't see how. The government doesn't set the dictionary definitions. Words do have meanings, and they are fairly consistent.



Now as far as the legal definition of terrorism, yes, the government does set it, which is its job, as the governing body does set legal definitions.
Tame is offline  
#13 Old 06-15-2004, 07:16 PM
Veggie Regular
 
schu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tame View Post

I don't see how. The government doesn't set the dictionary definitions. Words do have meanings, and they are fairly consistent.



Now as far as the legal definition of terrorism, yes, the government does set it, which is its job, as the governing body does set legal definitions.



thats all i meant
schu is offline  
#14 Old 06-15-2004, 09:19 PM
Joe
Veggie Regular
 
Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 5,660
I was taken to task in the other forum for being insensitive to the suffering of animals used in research. I don't think I am, but anyone is free to think that if they want to. [I can hear the lyric from the Eagles' "Hotel California" playing in the background--He has a nasty reputation as a cru-el dude ... ]



I think that some of the people who are criticizing me are maybe just plain bad at math. 10 Billion animals are killed each year in the US, almost all for food. If 100,000 are killed for research purposes, I'd have to believe that these animals suffered on average 100,000 times as much as the average farm/food animal suffers for research animals to be of equal concern to me. (100,000 x 100,000 = 10 Billion). I don't believe that the average research animal suffers 100,000 times as much as the average food animal, because I've seen no data to support this. But even if I believed that the average research animal suffers 100 times as much as the average food/farm animal, that's only one-thousandth as much suffering.



So, it is just not a priority concern for me.



If anyone would like to supply a different numerical analysis that they think makes sense, I'd be willing to consider it.



And yes, I just made a wild guess in picking the 100,000 figure. If you have a real figure for the number of animals used/killed for research purposes in the US, please cite and source it. But I doubt that it would alter the conclusion.
Joe is offline  
#15 Old 06-15-2004, 10:09 PM
Veggie Regular
 
kpickell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 16,090
I think the numbers are a lot higher than that. I don't have any statistics for the US, but in Great Britian 2,714,800 animals were used in experiments in the year 2000. Over 1.6 million of those were mice. Only around 115,000 of them were mammals. This comes from the BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopi...protests.shtml

I would assume the numbers for the US would be even great. It also says this number is less than half of what it was in the 1970s.
kpickell is offline  
#16 Old 06-15-2004, 10:18 PM
Joe
Veggie Regular
 
Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 5,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpickell View Post

I think the numbers are a lot higher than that. I don't have any statistics for the US, but in Great Britian 2,714,800 animals were used in experiments in the year 2000. Over 1.6 million of those were mice. Only around 115,000 of them were mammals. This comes from the BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopi...protests.shtml

I would assume the numbers for the US would be even great. It also says this number is less than half of what it was in the 1970s.



Aren't mice mammals?



Even if the number were 3 million, I'd still like to see some plausible calculus by which their suffering is in the same ballpark as that of the 10 Billion food animals.
Joe is offline  
#17 Old 06-15-2004, 10:34 PM
Veggie Regular
 
kpickell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 16,090
"Aren't mice mammals?"



Oh probably. But I meant non-rodents.
kpickell is offline  
#18 Old 06-15-2004, 10:35 PM
Veggie Regular
 
kpickell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 16,090
But anyways, I agree with your point.
kpickell is offline  
#19 Old 06-16-2004, 03:20 AM
Newbie
 
FlipFlop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 31
Definition of "terrorism":

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.







The key word is "unlawful". Goverment defines the law, so man may be looked as terrorist or no, depending on the piece of paper. So, meaning of "terrorist" don't include good or evil categories - only law category. So some "terrorists" are bad (Osama and etc.), some are progressive (abolitionists, anti-nazi fighters, ALF).





For example, man can be called "killer" or "thief" regardless of the law. If he kills, he is a killer. If he stole, he is a thief. Even if murder or stoling isn't "unlawful".
FlipFlop is offline  
#20 Old 06-16-2004, 03:27 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe View Post

10 Billion animals are killed each year in the US, almost all for food. If 100,000 are killed for research purposes, I'd have to believe that these animals suffered on average 100,000 times as much as the average farm/food animal suffers for research animals to be of equal concern to me. (100,000 x 100,000 = 10 Billion). I don't believe that the average research animal suffers 100,000 times as much as the average food animal, because I've seen no data to support this. But even if I believed that the average research animal suffers 100 times as much as the average food/farm animal, that's only one-thousandth as much suffering.



So, it is just not a priority concern for me.



Do you also think that the actions of neo-Nazis in a Western country are not a priority concern because the "amount" of death and suffering related to hunger and over-population in a developing country is much greater? (This is partly a genuine question about your views.)

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#21 Old 06-16-2004, 04:38 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Jessica's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 1,467
I agreed with Joe before, and I still agree with him.



I still find animal testing vile too. However, although I can't say I disagree with everything AR groups such as ALF do (and I'm always cheered to see passionate people out there fighting a cause), I can't see how it helps a great deal in the long-term to burn down buildings etc. New ones just get built. It doesn't actually do anything practical in terms of changing laws and so on. Only the public can do this, and the best way (in my view) to demonstrate against animal testing is to buy as few animal-tested products as possible and support those organisations (such as BUAV) which work to change laws and policies in a sensible, methodical and understandable way. I don't think I've ever heard someone call BUAV a bunch of loons.



Another problem is that, whilst it's relatively easy for the public to achieve things such as bans on cosmetics animal-testings (through boycotting) it's a lot more difficult when it comes to banning animal testing for medical research. Most of us, however stridently we call for such a ban, would be hard pressed to refuse treatment for ourselves and our families in life or death situations. Again, in this circumstance the only sensible thing to do is to support associations like BUAV which will fight on our behalf and who have far greater knowledge and resources at their disposal.



Going back to Joe's point - there is no doubt that there are millions more animals suffering on farms. Maybe their suffering isn't as acute, but it's still there, and on a massive scale. To my mind, swinging someone around to vegetarianism is an awful lot easier than trying to tell them that a mouse is as important as their child (whether I believe that to be true or not). Aside from anything else, most ethical vegetarians are likely to be far more discerning than your average man in the street when it comes to choosing cruelty-free, non-animal tested products, so by promoting vegetarianism you strike a double whammy.
Jessica is offline  
#22 Old 06-16-2004, 05:03 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessica View Post

To my mind, swinging someone around to vegetarianism is an awful lot easier than trying to tell them that a mouse is as important as their child (whether I believe that to be true or not).



But abolition of animal testing for medicine doesn't require a view "that a mouse is as important as their child". That's a distortion of the issue which fails to take into account, among other things, the economical factors in animal research, the alternative methods, and the question about the relation between equality and rights.



As for ethical vegetarians and a double whammy, ethical vegetarians can be AW vegetarians, in which case they might condone animal testing in medicine, whereas those who oppose animal testing in medicine probably have AR values, which means that they quite probably are veg*ns too (but of course there are exceptions).



ETA:



Animal testing in medicine is, in terms of advocation and ethical values, "special" in the sense that it is closely related to the issue of whether one supports animal welfare or animal rights.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#23 Old 06-16-2004, 05:43 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Jessica's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 1,467
OK Sevenseas, I understand your logic. Maybe some of my thoughts come about because I don't actually know what I can do about animal testing.



What I'd like to know then is this:



I'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons.

I don't buy animal-tested cosmetics/household products

I DO take medicines when necessary which have no doubt been animal-tested but I'm 100% sure that I wouldn't accept a pig's heart to keep me alive

I DON'T want animals to continue to be used for animal testing

but I DON'T agree with radical ("turn-off") approaches such as burning down buildings



How do I, as an individual, protest against animal testing in medical research? It's not as easy as refusing to eat a burger, or use a particular shampoo.
Jessica is offline  
#24 Old 06-16-2004, 08:09 AM
Banned
 
Couloir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 66
Well, seems some here have quite a bit more free time than I do to post debate points back and forth. I'm busy with the rest of my life now, but I'll be back in a couple of weeks or so for another tour of duty to combat the ignorant propaganda generated by the biomedical research community, agribusiness, and other assorted animal abusers and swallowed hook, line, and sinker by many in society and, a little surprisingly, by some vegetarians and vegans here. Educate yourselves [about the plight of animals and have compassion for them]. Question what you read from biased sources! Think for yourself; don't let society's sheep herd mentality suck you in to blind conformity in thought, speech, and behavior.
Couloir is offline  
#25 Old 06-16-2004, 08:34 AM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
We are so blessed to have such an educated, all-knowing, world traveled member gracing us dumb-ass lame brains with your presence Couloir. Where in the heck would we be without you? How did I ever get by before? I'm in awe of the person that is you. All bow down and think the way Couloir thinks, believe what Couloir believes, and don't bother to question it. He/she's already done the work for us. We should trust Couloir to spoon feed us the information that we do not know because we are to ignorant to read about it ourselves. I owe you a million!
GhostUser is offline  
#26 Old 06-16-2004, 09:36 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Terra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessica View Post

How do I, as an individual, protest against animal testing in medical research?



You can't: this aspect of medicine was carefully designed to circumvent the normal market pressures. There are two things you can do:



I) Wait out problems.



Most medical problems go away on their own, especially when you're young. Consequently, I found that I can boycott medical experimentation is to boycott medicine. If you go this route, you may want to read a bit about medical history: it becomes very apparent very quickly that medicine hasn't really improved in the past four hundred years. If nothing else, it's made me feel very comfortable about my decision to avoid doctors.



II) Protest politically.



'Nuf said.



These may not work for you, but they've helped me go to bed at night with a clear conscience.



Terra
Terra is offline  
#27 Old 06-16-2004, 09:55 AM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terra View Post


I) Wait out problems.



Most medical problems go away on their own, especially when you're young. Consequently, I found that I can boycott medical experimentation is to boycott medicine. If you go this route, you may want to read a bit about medical history: it becomes very apparent very quickly that medicine hasn't really improved in the past four hundred years. If nothing else, it's made me feel very comfortable about my decision to avoid doctors.



Terra



I'm stunned to hear that most medical problems go away on their own. What type of medical problems do you know that will go away on their own that the typical person gets treated for? I'm thinking and all I can come up with is the common cold. Strep throat, bronchitis, sinus infection, kidney infection, yeast infection (actually all types of infections), diabetes...I could go on. Any of these listed surely need to be treated and won't go away on their own, no? And ignoring the illness only tends to complicate it resulting in permanent damage and even death.



I believe medicine has had great achievements in the past 400 years and has come a long way. I also believe that we still have a way to go though. There's always room for improvement in any process.
GhostUser is offline  
#28 Old 06-16-2004, 09:56 AM
Banned
 
Tame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Couloir View Post

Well, seems some here have quite a bit more free time than I do to post debate points back and forth. I'm busy with the rest of my life now, but I'll be back in a couple of weeks or so for another tour of duty to combat the ignorant propaganda generated by the biomedical research community, agribusiness, and other assorted animal abusers and swallowed hook, line, and sinker by many in society and, a little surprisingly, by some vegetarians and vegans here. Educate yourselves! Question what you read from biased sources! Think for yourself; don't let society's sheep herd mentality suck you in to blind conformity in thought, speech, and behavior.





Okey-dokey. Keep us posted! Let us know how that works out for you!



(Oh, and while you are gone, look into buying a dictionary. You might find using real definitions rather than making them up will help you convert those of us mired in with the unwashed masses.)
Tame is offline  
#29 Old 06-16-2004, 09:59 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Christy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,414
You forgot "and thanks for coming out!"
Christy is offline  
#30 Old 06-16-2004, 10:03 AM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Bahwahahahahaha!
GhostUser is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off