Animal rights: Fetishizing violence?

AR are nothing but an ersatz religion, where evidence does not count, where the mistreated “animal” becomes the revered symbol of what they think is wrong with society, the animal a god that has priority to anything human or human needs.

They are simply not – as any good disciple – open to rational argument.

Unwilling to address wrongdoings in any of the realms of concern – environment, globalization, resource depletion etc. – by appropriate political action, they redirect their anger against humanity itself, gloryfying and romaticizing animals.

What is there to discuss with them?
I was a labtech in privately and publicly funded institutions, and to provide excellent care for the animals needed for med. research was paramount, simply from self interest alone to produce valid test results, not to mention any ethical issues involved with justifying the use of animals for any research.

It’s like they stole the playbook from the crazed anti-abortion nuts and just changed a few words. How long before they get really violent and get someone hurt or killed?

It is easy to see that these people are terrorists “militant direct action tactics” sound a lot like terroristic threats to me…I would advise the people in those lists to contact the proper authorities and legal council; a civil law suit might be useful in stopping these instigators of violence.

I am an (ex) veterinarian. When I was at University, we used local pound dogs to learn surgery. These animals were going to be euthanised, because of the indifference of our society to their plight – they were excess to demand. We used them, in a humane and caring way, to learn our profession.

The local Animal Liberationists protested, claiming that we perpetuated the throwaway attitude of society to companion animals. This was insulting in the extreme. They forced the local pounds to ‘cease and desist’ in providing the University with these animals. It didn’t matter to them that the end result was the same number of animals dying; but less education, less skill development, less advancement of human and animal welfare.

We had a debate at the University. It was pretty much over when our head of faculty stepped up to introduce the protaganists and said that he was thankful of animal research; he was the recipient of a heart/lung transplant, a procedure that would not have been possible if not trialled first in animals.

I have ‘saved’ research animals, including a darling little white rat who insisted on sleeping next to me, on my pillow. But I know that this is not a sustainable approach.

Towards the end of my veterinary career, I ended up at an animal shelter, to do my part to alleviate the suffering of other beings in the world. Instead, I found myself at the blunt end of a needle, mopping up the excesses of society’s indifference. 30 000 unwanted animals were euthanised every year at that shelter. A measure of the disgusting attitude of my city towards dogs and cats; individuals who would give their all to humans in exchange for a little love, care, shelter and food.

Two veterinarians were employed to take on this grisly task. To simplify the maths for you, I was personally responsible for hastening the end of 15 000 lives per annum.

After a couple of years, I was pyschologically destroyed. 14 years later, I still cannot describe this properly; it is too painful; too raw. Yet, that work, that I was not strong enough to continue in, goes on – others have taken my place, others suffer in my place, but it is work that must continue, in the end, because it increases the overall welfare of the animals that share our lives.

I fully support animal research. I fully support such research to be undertaken under appropriate controls. Given my experience and insight, I find it incredibly offensive that animal rights activists would suggest that any researcher does it for pleasure. Any that does should be drummed out of the field. But I am sure that most, if not all, suffer for their profession – they empathise with the animals that they are asking so much of. They actively work to minimise the discomfort of their subjects. They move forward every day because they see the greater good, for both human and animal. They do not enjoy the details of using animals for experimentation; but they gain great satisfaction from the outcomes. They recognise they are working for the greater good.

The thing here is that all the progress that is being made in the animal research area, it is not driven by the crazies, who have only one, inappropriate, indefensible view on this area; but by the empathy and sorrow of the researchers who strive always for a better position. I feel for every researcher who works with animals. I feel their pain. I know how they feel and I can only express my gratitude for what they do.

The loonies who threaten, who rant and spit, who have no rational input to this debate should be locked away as soon as they transgress the law. They should not be let out. I understand their passion; but to claim the only moral position is indefensible.

@6 Michael,

What you do not seem to realize is that medicine is not about judging whether a person deserves treatment. All people are treated according to their medical condition, not according to the whims of the doctor. If there were another surgeon around, who could provide competent care, then Orac would be justified in stepping aside and having the other surgeon provide care. If there is nobody else, then Orac is obligated to provide appropriate care, regardless of how despicable Camille Marino is.

@7 Bill,

Don’t let these terrorist get to you. You are far more aware of their hypocrisy than most. Things will improve as people learn about the importance of animal research.

I think it is absolutely true that some AR extremists fetishize violence, and often manipulate evidence in order to provide support their fantasies. You can see the same in some of the claims made by groups such as Shac and Speak in the UK. In the case of Speak some of the claims were so outlandish, for example monkeys being brought for walks in Oxford city parks following brain surgery, that I had the distinct impression that they had either made them up or had lapped up nonsense that had been fed to them by somebody who wanted to make them look ridiculous.

The similarity to the propaganda of extreme anti-abortion groups is obvious, but it also isn’t a million miles from the “most oppressed people ever” style propaganda produced by some extreme national liberation and religeous fundamentalist groups. The obsession with martyrs is another common feature of such movements.

Anyway if you’d like a break form the craziness I’d suggest taking a look at David and Dario’s writings on the Speaking of Research blog http://speakingofresearch.com/news/

If the lovely Camille showed up at your surgery, sick, and really needed you to operate, would you?

Yes, if she would permit it. My Hippocratic oath demands no less, and whether I find a human being to be a despicable piece of scum or not is irrelevant to my doing my duty as a physician and a surgeon.

Back in residency when I used to do trauma surgery, I operated on injured criminals from time to time, including on one occasion one accused of murder.

Remember, though, they hypothetical situation we are talking about is in an emergency. For a medical problem that could be treated with elective surgery, I’d strongly suggest that Marino find another surgeon.

Of course, I highly doubt that Marino would ever let a “vivisector” operate on her; so it’s probably all a moot point anyway.

Well, I would have to presume she is a vegetarian. I can’t imagine what attitude she takes to the forms of ecological management that involve culling. I suppose she is anti-guns, at least so far as hunting guns are concerned. All that would seem to be called for by mere logic. So why on earth has she singled out researchers for violence? Why not abattoirs? Or farmers who raise animals for food generally? Why not hunting groups? Hell, why not the national parks and other ecological protection organisations (although maybe I’m assuming you have to use culling in the US. In Europe we do because of the lack of predators). Errm, what about the stray animal round-up people?

@Tsu Dho Nimh

Hmm, that’s an interesting point – how much animal research actually ends up benefitting animals even more than humans? Without the knowledge from animal research, vets would be flying blind with problems, and the vast array of veterinary pharmaceuticals would be reduced to a 12 gauge shotgun.

And of course they’re gutless when it comes to target which can fight back – just like all bullies.

It’s a phenomena called “Virtual Balls” – when they are safely shielded or disassociated from real consequences coming back to haunt them (picking on kids, vandalism, or ‘soft’ targets), they strut and swagger like they are superman. But when they are on the spot (a bikie about to punch their head in for pouring paint on his leather seat, or police about the charge them) they turn into blobs of jelly and cry about how those mean people pick on them.

The slavering detailed descriptions (film and print) offered by Camille etal have maybe two major effects. One, they certainly seem very porn-like in their gruesome way which must satisfy them personally at some level. Second, they serve to shut down rational thought by the viewers/readers. Anyone watching/reading must respond with revulsion, anger and hate or be branded a heartless enemy. That shutting off of debate is what keeps these terrorists moving and focused without having to think much about the hypocrisy and stupidity of their own actions.

Woody what do you call an organized group of people who use fear, intimidation and violence (or the threat of violence) to accomplish political goals outside of an established political system. Particularly when these actions are being directed against groups or individuals who are not engaging in the targeted activity.

Woody Tanaka: by any reasonable definition, someone who tries to halt an activity by making the practitioners fear for their lives is a terrorist. It isn’t simply a nasty name; it is the correct technical term when a person uses terror as a weapon. The message being sent is “you could be next”. That is terrorism at its purest.

I wouldn’t go as far as Orac and others to suggest that perhaps the animal rights extremists get off on these gruesome descriptions, any more than anti-porn campaigners get off on descriptions of porn. That is, I am not convinced the whole animal rights campaign is, for some people, little more than an excuse to share graphic descriptions of torture.

No, if it’s a fetishization of anything, it’s the fetishization of hatred. The descriptions of violence are not the end; they are a symptom.

Hatred is very appealing to us as a species, because it fires us up, makes us feel *alive*, and makes us feel like throwing caution to the wind. It frees us to do things and say things which aren’t socially acceptable otherwise. This is probably why it survives as a trait in our species; being able to hate probably makes us much more effective at defending our tribe’s territory from interlopers, because it lets us take bigger risks. Downside, of course, is that taking bigger risks has individual consequences, and it doesn’t translate well into peacetime.

Some people, I think, get hooked on hate (so to speak; I’m not talking an actual addiction here but more of a sort of psychological rut). They find a cause and attach themselves to it with a passion. They hate those who oppose them, and that hate burns hotter and hotter, distorting their views of the enemy. Propaganda isn’t always written by people calmly working out the best tools for recruitment; sometimes it’s written by people who are just really really angry and can’t see the truth anymore through the red haze.

Spare me the false equivalence, Woody Tanaka. It’s not accurate. Sometimes both sides do not have equal merit, and this is one of them. I wouldn’t pretend to say that either side is more moral, but I do know that one side is more factual than the other.

“This isn’t fetishizing violence or snuff porn or any such nonsense. It is an attempt to eliminate what this person feels is researchers’ euphemistic description of what is going on, in order to advance the Animal Rights Activists’ position on these issues.”

So, two people of equal experience are coming up with equally hyperbolic descriptions of the other side to stoke the flames of their particular ideologies? Sounds nice, but one of these groups has worked in labs with animal experimentation and the other hasn’t, therefore one has a factual basis from which to make their accusations. Also, one side is advocating intimidation and violence, and the other is just calling people who advocate for intimidation and violence (against children mind you) “scum”.

I think the moniker fits.

No, Woody, because people who advocate targeting children for harassment ARE scum. People who burn down research buildings or bomb scientists who are trying to better mankind ARE scum. People who fly into fury at the thought of an animal being injured, but who casually advocate violence against another human being ARE scum.

try looking up dog fighters in the local phone book – they’re not as obvious as universities

Biker bars are easy enough to find. The Hell’s Angels have an open, announced hangout in the East Village in NYC. Why do I never see animal rights activists in front of obvious, easy to find biker bars and HA hangouts protesting leather? There are plenty of good substitutes for leather that don’t even have to be developed: they exist right now. Seems like the perfect opportunity. Yet they’re just not there. It’s cowardice all right.

It looks like a no-brainer: Stop animal experiments, reduce suffering, find alternatives – why aren’t we already doing it?

Only to someone with no brain! There are so many problems with this statement it’s hard to know where to start, but I’ll just plunge in regardless:
1. How does one “find alternatives” without testing the potential alternatives against the standard? Suppose you have a proposed method of, say, testing metastatic potential of cancer in vitro. How would you know whether it worked or not without comparing it with the standard model (ie nude or transgenic mice)?
2. Ending animal experimentation would not reduce suffering. I and I think everyone here will agree that some experiment should not be done and some animals should not be used in experiments except in dire need. That’s what IACUC are for. But the average lab animal is a mouse. Does a mouse really live a better life in the “wild” than in a lab? In a lab it has shelter, food, freedom from predation, companionship, and a place to hide. And 99% of the time the worst pain it is likely to undergo is something like a needlestick or two in its life. A lab mouse “rescued” by PETA is likely to be dumped in an open field with no idea where to run, how to get food, or what to do. Probably the worst thing you can possibly do to a mouse, in fact. Mice in labs=mice not being eaten alive by predators, poisoned with warfarin, or chewed up by farm equipment.
3. So what do you propose as an alternative method for testing toxicity, models of metastatic disease, function of genes in an organism, etc?
4. Before you say “cell culture” as an alternative for ANYTHING, let me remind you that eukaryotic cells require fetal calf serum to live. Not really a vegan alternative to animal testing. If anything worse because there are no IACUCs looking after farm animal welfare.
5. Actually, we are “doing it”, that is, finding in vitro alternatives for some animal testing models. But the people doing it are the researchers you’re interested in terrorizing and killing, not the terrorists and supporters who are at best whining about it not being done. Why don’t you do something positive toward reducing animal experimentation if you’re interested? Set up a foundation to fund alternative models. Become a researcher yourself. Volunteer for you local IACUC and help ensure that all animal testing being done is necessary. But giving money to PETA isn’t helping anyone or any animal.

Reading through some of this stuff yesterday I was struck by the same thought, that some of the imagery at NIO had to be cover for some kind of psychological disorder or trauma. But lets not paint all the animal rights people with a broad brush. Some are delusional or psychotic but others are well meaning but hopelessly ignorant and misled by the crazies.

At least KevinL up-thread seems capable of having a rational discussion on the matter and I assume there are others affiliated with the movement that are open to learning that the bizarre propaganda they’re getting maybe isn’t the story.

“At the most basic level, there is no disagreement that animals are used in experimental capacities, and the prime ethical question is whether that is ethically permissible or if it is evil.”

Woody, the problem with approaching the issue this way is that the nutcase terrorists are completely ignorant of what “used in experimental capacities” means. They have gone completely overboard with bizarre fantasies about mutilation and torture. They are ignorant fools who are inevitably going to hurt somebody. Stop apologizing for them.

Woody, you and the animal-rights terrorists seem to forget that the entities generally called IACUCs exist. You probably live within driving distance of a university that hosts animal research. IACUCs are, by their nature, open to participation by interested members of the public. If and when you actually take the time to join one (or even read their protocol-review policies) instead of spending your time on the internet defending terrorists, you will find that not all “animal experimentation” is ethically equivalent, and that the abuses of the past are long gone. It is not any kind of ethical question, let alone a “prime” one, to ask whether all modern animal experimentation is evil. What is evil is to use violence and the threat thereof to stop research into causes of and treatments for human suffering, when that research has been examined for several months by an IACUC whose sole purpose is to minimize the suffering of the animals involved.

Shorter Woody:

“I know that real animal research can involve minimal or even no discomfort to the animals involved. But animals are involved. This justifies terrorism against humans.”

Bullshit, Woody.

@Woody

Your bit about semantics is off. If we actually look at the terms employed, we’ll see a discrepancy between how the ARAs are being described and how the researchers are being described. That the extremists are terrorists has already been illustrated as being a factual statement, not merely name-calling. So, let’s take a look at “animal torturers”. Specifically, the meaning of “torture”:

the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, definition 2)

This seems to be the sense in which the ARAs are using it. Going by this definition, we can see that researchers are not torturers. They do not inflict pain (intense or otherwise) for the purpose of punishment, coercion or to derive sadistic pleasure.

Now let’s examine scum (also from Merriam-Webster Online):

a low, vile, or worthless person or group of people

The ARAs do engage in low and vile tactics (violence and threats of violence, esp. toward children), which you seem to agree is true. As to worthless, in this context, it is equivalent to “contemptible” or “despicable”, which is also a factual statement. So, we see that the ARAs are, in fact, scum, according to this definition.

Now, purveyors of snuff porn. From Wikipedia, we have this definition of a snuff film:

A snuff film or snuff movie is a motion picture genre that depicts the actual death or murder of a person or people, without the aid of special effects, for the express purpose of distribution and entertainment or financial exploitation.

The ARAs, it can be argued, use motion pictures of the actual death/murder of animals for the purpose of (macabre) entertainment and (emotional) exploitation. They may also derive greater membership revenues from using such films to stir the emotions of the public. So they do, in fact, purvey snuff porn.

And finally, ersatz religion. The ARAs have fervent belief despite (and often in spite of) the facts of the matter. This belief rises almost to the status of a religion (i.e. worship of X). But, since it is not as elevated as religion, it is an inferior substitute, hence, ersatz. So again, we see that their extreme beliefs are, in fact, an ersatz religion.

When we boil it all down to facts, reality supports the nomenclature applied to the ARAs, but the ARAs have no factual support for their descriptions of researchers.

“’I know that real animal research can involve minimal or even no discomfort to the animals involved. But animals are involved. This justifies terrorism against humans.’

Bullshit, Woody.”

No, madder, what is bullshit is your reading comprehension. I never, not once, said anything about justifying terrorism. In fact, on more than one occassion, I’ve specifically stated my opposition to those tactics. I’m not even talking about my own opinions, for pete’s sake. I’m talking about the ethics and opinion of these animal rights’ activists.

So either improve your reading skills or piss off.

The hate exists on both sides, because that’s how humans react when there are two conflicting ethical standards, and both sides are convinced that theirs is superior and that of their opponents is evil.

Once again, Woody, you’re excusing and justifying terrorism against innocent people using blatantly false equivalencies. Scientists are not engaging in violence, threats, or harassment against AR activists, or their families, therefore they cannot validly be compared to their enemies.

You can’t argue that their opposition is not based on fact when the core ethical objection is based on the uncontested fact that animals are being experimented upon.

Yes, we can, because — as has already been shown — their pamphlets and speeches are filled with lies.

Now, you can disagree with their ethical conclusion, but that disagreement does not make the pro-animal research position objectively superior to the anti-animal research position.

The pro-research position is based on facts and beneficial results for large numbers of humans and animals. The Anti-research position is based on lies, mindless incontinent hate, and, in the cases discussed on this blog recently, disregard for law and the basic rights of others. THAT makes the pro-research position objectively superior.

So you can’t simply dismiss all of their position by pointing out that they are wrong on some facts, when the core fact — the animals are being experimented on — is uncontested, because that fact, alone, is sufficient to support their ethical conclusion.

If they’re wrong on the “facts” that support their position (as they’ve been shown to be wrong about the facts of animal testing), then we CAN dismiss all of their position for that reason. “We have a moral position” does not justify or excuse stupidity, dishonesty, or undisciplined bullying, nor does it entitle you to respect if you don’t earn it.

And I’m not apologizing for anyone; I’m just giving my opinion.

And we’re pointing out to you that your opinion is based on very few facts and bogus logic; therefore it’s invalid and worthless.

If you don’t like it so much, then feel free to not read it and move along to the next post.

You don’t own this blog, you stupid prick, so you don’t get to tell us how to respond to what we see here. If you don’t like the response you get here, YOU’RE the one who should bugger off.

“It doesn’t matter what I would call them. They wouldn’t call themselves terrorists, just as scientists don’t call themselves animal torturers. There is a symantic game on both sides of this (and most every argument). That was the point of my post.”

Well its great that they don’t view themselves terrorists. Its also great that what they do just so happens to pretty much exactly match the dictionary definition of terrorism (and the definition of terrorist is amusingly “one who engages in terrorism”). It would be even better if they wouldn’t engage in terrorism. Maybe now that some of us are pointing out to them that they’re terrorists, they’ll rethink their terroristic ways and act like … non-terrorists.

Its like frigging bizzaro world here. The people engage in terrorism but its wrong to call them terrorists, even though it is a correctly applied label. Scientists do not perform vivisection but its perfectly acceptable to call them vivisectionists.

For all their left-wing posturing, there’s also more than a little bit of fascist tendencies in the AR movement. Consider, for instance, Robert Paxton’s nine mobilizing passions of fascism, with my comment after each one:

— a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions [Check-AR extremists certainly exhibit this];

— the primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether universal or individual, and the subordination of the individual to it [OK, not so much in AR extremists, although they certainly do seem to think that everyone has duties to animals that subordinate the individual];

— the belief that one’s group is a victim, a sentiment which justifies any action, without legal or moral limits, against the group’s enemies, both internal and external [The AR extremists definitely have this in spades, or you might look at it as their viewing animals as being victims to the point that justifies any action and that they are in solidarity with the animals];

— dread of the group’s decline under the corrosive effect of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences [not so much in AR extremists];

— the need for closer integration of a purer community, by consent if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary [AR extremists certainly want a “purer” community and are willing to use exclusionary violence to achieve it.]

— the need for authority by natural leaders (always male), culminating in a national chief who alone is capable of incarnating the group’s destiny [No. AR doesn’t have this];

— the superiority of the leader’s instincts over abstract and universal reason [Hard to say; certainly “leaders” like Vlasak and Best seem to think their instincts are better than abstract and universal reason];

— the beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group’s success [AR loons definitely appear to exhibit this to some extent];

— the right of the chosen people to dominate others without restraint from any kind of human or divine law, right being decided by the sole criterion of the group’s prowess in a Darwinian struggle [Nope].

Although AR extremists are not fascists, they share several traits with fascists–enough to be disturbing.

Camille says “Ray referred to his victims as “packages.””

Does she not de-identify her targets also. Calling them vivisectionsists and animal torturers? These researchers don’t have kids they have offspring.

Pot calling the kettle black?

As someone who worked in labs that used animals and that currently helps researchers with their ethics applications I find their claims about what we do amazing. Pure sick fantasy totally unconnected to reality.

So now, having lost the argument and faced with responses he can’t refute, Woody the Prick is now hiding in hairsplitting word-definition arguments, and ignoring the facts and events on which we’ve based our initial choice of words.

Next, your definition of “snuff film” clearly indicates the death of humans, so it clearly does not apply here.

Yes, little man, we know the term “snuff film” applies to the filming of humans being tortured and killed on-camera. And what we’re saying here is that the AR asshats are doing something very similar, in a similar violent-porn spirit, with dying animals. Your quibbling over word-usage is a transparent and cowardly attempt to dodge the central points at issue here.

I’d say that the activists are doing this for neither entertainment nor exploitation value, but, rather, consciousness raising involved. They release this material because they believe, rightly or wrongly, that if people saw what was really happening, that they’d by outraged and would take action.

In many cases — as the original post pointed out — the videos and photos used were misrepresentations of reality; so you can’t call it “consciousness raising,” especially when they ignore corrective information and make no corrections to misinformation when it is offered.

Finally, “ersatz religion” would only make sense if what you are talking about is, in fact, a religion…

Wrong again. It would also make sense if the AR thug-boyz exhibit thought-patterns and rationalizations similar to those found in a religious cult. And that is what peter is contending in #1.

Raging bee, you’re practically proving Woody’s point about cheap and tiresome rhetoric with your use of “Woody the Prick” and “Little Man”.

Let’s call it like it is. These cretins are no different than the ones that brought down the World Trade Center. They should be treated as terrorists and enemy combatants

ToddW: “I beg to differ. Regarding torture, it appears that the ARAs are, in fact, using the term in the sense that researchers inflict pain upon the animals for the purpose of sadistic pleasure.”

Some are, sure. But I would guess that most animal rights people would accuse scientist of being amoral or ethically deaf than being actual sadists. I know a few people who are really big into animal rights, but they’re mostly of the opinion that the evil comes not in the scientist being a sadist, but in the scientist just not caring that it is evil (in their opinion) to use animals in experiments.

“On ‘scum’, do you deny the fact that the ARAs are, in fact, low, vile and despicable due to their actions?”

Yes, I do deny that. None of the animal rights activists I know (all are non-violent) are low, vile and despicable. They are some of the finest people I know. But even those who advocate terror tactics are human beings, it does nothing but make cheap rhetoric to use epithets. I could accept your position that someone who threatens a scientist with harm because of experiments on animals is a “scum,” and I could accept an activist’s argument that people who experiment on animals are “scum” or I could just simply both to cut out the tired rhetoric.

“Finally, on ersatz religion, please look up the meaning of ‘ersatz’ and how it can be used in phrases such as ‘ersatz religion’. The meaning is that their beliefs do not constitute an actual religion (i.e., worship of the supernatural), but that it is an imitation of/substitution for religion. They act on faith (i.e., belief without, and often in spite of contrary, evidence to support their beliefs).”

Oh, I know what the word “ersatz” means. What I’m saying is that “religion” and “strong feelings” are not the same thing. These people are passionate, and even if they are misguided, that does not make their opinions and beliefs a religion, even an ersatz one. It just means that they have strong feelings. Likewise, my passionate belief that evolution has occurred and that creationism is a great, giant, steamy pile of wrong-ness is not, by virtue of that passion, a religion (although I’ve been accused of exactly that on many occasions.) And, again, at its core, the only fact that matters to them – that animals are used in experiments – is an uncontested fact and is not accepted on faith.

Notice that Woody doesn’t dare address Dianne directly? Is it because she’s kicked his arse from here to Charing Cross?

Wait, isn’t “pest” really close to “scum”? I guess it depends on whether you mean troublesome person or a destructive animal. Then again, if we say that animal is close to scum, we’re begging the question and which side is obviously in the right is evident.

…the only fact that matters to them – that animals are used in experiments – is an uncontested fact and is not accepted on faith.

Bullshit — the specific details of such experimentation and what it entails are indeed “contested:” as has been pointed out here and elsewhere (and you ignore), the AR activists have frequently been caught repeating long-refuted flat-out lies about what, exactly, goes on in animal-research labs. And when people with actual experience in animal-experimentation laboriously point out the facts, their long and careful expositions are ignored by the activists, who keep on screaming “VIVISECTION!!!” and ignore the reality.

@Raging Bee #62–

Well put. When I considered Woody’s exegesis of his position, it almost seemed like an interesting argument: ARAs claiming that scientists just love gettin’ soaked in blood (screams a bonus) vs. people like us engaging in amateur psychoanalysis. Almost.

“False equivalence” sums it up well. ARAs like Camille base their depictions on fantasy and hyperbole. The scientists here and elsewhere speculating about violence fetishism and so on, though, have the actual words and actions of their targets to discuss. Orac even links to them above. One can easily compare the “fetishism” analysis to the words on which it is based. Closer examination of the ARAs’ portrayals, on the other hand, shows them to be almost universally false.

And Woody, we’re talking about the unhinged ARAs. Reasonable ones participated in the creation of IACUCs. Researchers like Orac (and me, back in the day) often view the hoops that we have to jump through to be a bit burdensome, but almost none of us would go back to the days before they existed. IACUCs serve a dual function: protecting animal welfare, and providing actual, verifiable evidence to any who care to look that animal research is done in a humane and ethical way.

But some people prefer not to look, instead lying about us and what we do. We reserve the right to be upset with them.

Woody’s been trying to demonstrate (as I did with my post) how these people think. Those who are attacking the views, step back a sec – those posts aren’t an attempt to support them, but an attempt to explain where they’re coming from. I felt the need to plaster my post with “I do not condone” notes to make it clear that it wasn’t an attempt to excuse them, but (given the content of Orac’s post) an attempt to put the record straight on their motives and try and offer a glimpse into how and why people would act that way.

At some level, it’s inevitable (and I refer to the response in the comments here, as well as the extremist behaviour) – we are the type of creature that likes to have an “us” and a “them”.

@Orac, that list can be warped in a bunch of ways, and I’m not sure calling them fascists (or terrorists, for that matter) really helps you understand them. Sure, they feel there’s a bigger issue at stake, they feel they’re not being listened to by the rest of the world, it’s an emergency and that justifies their actions. _That_ goes to the heart of what drives these things. The rest is just posturing to try and call them names, which might be a great group-builder but doesn’t really do you any good (sure, so call them fascists, what does that change about how you deal with them?)

Working my way down the comments:

re: Godwin’s law, it’s inevitable when describing this stuff because those comparisons _are_ used when explaining the basis for their beliefs. I could pick other atrocities, but the nazi’s are the easy one everyone recognises.

re: hell’s angels bars, it’s a lost cause so far – the chances of getting any sort of headway on telling bikers to switch from leather are slim, the chances of getting a research facility shut down are much higher. Bikers are down the list on where change can happen, so they’ll get to them later. You can call it cowardice if you like – I don’t think anyone in the movement really thinks they have a chance of that argument actually working, so they wouldn’t bother. You’ve got to remember, there’s a _huge_ body of change people want to see happen – right the way down to us all becoming vegans, ending all animal suffering, the whole bit. It’s a massive list of things wrong with the world, all you can do is break it down to tiny manageable pieces and chip away at it.

@Dianne, I understand your arguments – I was putting forward the logic chain that drives the whole thing. Personally, I believe we’re still too cavalier in our use of animals, but there _are_ good reasons to use animals sometimes, for some things. That, incidentally, would put me at odds with even most of the moderate anti-testing people. I’d like to say we all hope the number of animals used continues to go down as we develop good models and other alternatives, but a lot of people either don’t care or worse. I’d love to see the IACUC reports on Wakefield’s monkey study, for instance – and while the oversight is there, it’s not complete (should they be responsible for realising Wakefield’s studies are quack science and disallowing the use of animals? I don’t think so, but then who does stop it?) PETA are, imnsho, the greenpeace of the movement – they exist to get media attention focussed on things, not much else, and they’re pretty damned good at that.

re: farming, sure – talk to any of the AR people about farming, or whether they’re vegetarian, I think you’ll find they support turning the world veg*. Again, changing everyone to a no-meat diet is ideal, but seen as much more difficult than shutting down some of the animal testing, so it’s always a question of which stuff do you chase first? I’m sure, if I knew your personal beliefs, I could pick out things you believe in that you’re not working on as hard as others and say “but why do you not do that” – it’s not a sign of hypocrisy, it’s a sign of limited mental/emotional/time resources. Also, there are other people chasing those other bits – people get drawn to different parts of the whole in terms of what they find the worst.

With regard to not using the results of the experimentation, it’s nearly impossible, but some do try – every so often you’ll get people who refuse various treatments in hospital on belief grounds. But, there’s limits you practically have to put on that – our whole civilisation is built on the suffering of others (animals and humans), so you draw lines based usually on immediacy. None of the AR extremists would be wearing animal tested cosmetics, or would use animal-tested or animal-sourced drugs typically, where the information is available. For myself as an example, as a vegan I have nothing from animals in my wardrobe, cupboard, or (currently) medicine cabinet (that I’m aware of). Having said that, I will take drugs that are animal tested (hard not to given we went through an “LD50” period and many countries still actually require _animal_ testing as part of proving things are safe, even if you can demonstrate on equivalent models that it’s not an issue) and if prescribed, I’ll take animal-sourced drugs – I like my life and health too much not to, that could be seen as hypocrisy but I’m not entirely sure it invalidates the rest of the position.

Woody’s posts are clear and good in describing the view – this sentence in particular:
“””
The animal rights people simply do not believe that the distinction you would draw between the situation where the subject is a human animal and where the subject is a non-human animal is an ethically valid one
“””

That’s the heart of the whole thing. You can rail about hypocrisy or fascism or whatever else as much as you like, but if you’re not addressing that point, it’s just noise to them. Incidentally, the idea that people here don’t understand that suffering should be met with force is laughable – most of you understand, at least, the rational behind attacking a country with a murderous dictator to stop them from inflicting suffering on their people. Madder saying it’s incomprehensible that violence against other creatures should be met with more violence is just a demonstration that you haven’t stopped and thought it through. We meet violence with violence every day in the interests of “the greater good”. If the cops shot down someone that had systematically butchered humans (humanely or no), most people would be cheering, or at least think it justified.

@raging bee, the trouble with the “pro research” position, as you put it, is that it doesn’t exist. Not really. IACUC exists because we already accept that suffering is involved and it needs to be minimised. As rational, caring humans (as others have pointed out scientists are), we would hope that animal suffering is minimised – that’s part of why we research models and alternatives. The AR extremists just don’t believe that scientists are really paying enough attention to that – and with reports like http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/23/ben-goldacre-bad-science floating around, you can understand why.

Again, so people are clear: I _do_ believe the extremists wind themselves up on a bunch of false information – although some of it is true as well, as much as we’d like to believe having organisations like IACUC helps, there’s often a gap between intention and actuality, and bad things _do_ happen. I don’t believe the AR people have the right response here – I don’t think the violence is at all justifiable or even useful to their cause. Throwing around comments about these people being scum, fascists, glorifying violence, etc should be done with care, because it adds fuel to their fire and marginalises those (like me) who sympathise with their views, if not their actions. I’d also argue it’s an emotive, not a rational, response in a lot of cases – it doesn’t actually further the “what do we do about this” discussion, it just lets you all point at “them” and decry their existence.

At the end of the day, I believe strongly that you can’t just close your eyes on this stuff. Ben Goldacre’s article’s final paragraph is spot on. Just because there’s people ranting at the door about how evil the scientists are, doesn’t mean science gets to pretend it’s all hunky-dory. Wakefield’s study gets laughed at for not having a consistent number of monkeys – 35% of published results make exactly the same mistake. So is over a third of our animal-based research completely invalid? If so, that’s a real cause for concern. While those sorts of glaring issues exist, people like this have fuel. Take those away and you starve them of material – and improve research in the process.

I still don’t believe – haven’t seen in here any support for – the idea that they’re doing this because they want to glorify the violence – the initial charge made. I truly think it’s an attempt to underscore the seriousness of the charges they’re making, and it reflects what they believe actually happens. There’s very little literature out there that shows the inside of a researcher’s animal care facility, or paints animal research in a positive light wrt what’s actually done to the animals, so the AR people have the only voice on describing the experiments in public. You’ll never convince the extremists, and I wouldn’t bother trying – those arguments are just people shouting at each other, on both sides. It’s the general public that’s more important.

I’d love to see the IACUC reports on Wakefield’s monkey study, for instance – and while the oversight is there, it’s not complete (should they be responsible for realising Wakefield’s studies are quack science and disallowing the use of animals? I don’t think so, but then who does stop it?)

Hey, I think we’ve found common ground! I’d love to see it too. I can’t imagine what they were thinking. Nor can I imagine what the IRB that approved his study on autistic children were thinking. Both incidents definitely argue for oversight committees being imperfect. And I do think that both should have realized that Wakefield’s science was questionable and at least demanded better safeguards than were in place, if not refused to approve the protocols outright. However, I don’t see Wakefield’s studies as reasons to end either human or non-human animal research, just cautions that that research always needs good oversight.

BTW: My apologies for being rude earlier.

None of the animal rights activists I know

They’re not talking about the animal rights activists you know as “scum”.

But even those who advocate terror tactics are human beings, it does nothing but make cheap rhetoric to use epithets.

That is one of the most amazing examples of tone trolling I have seen in a long while. Congratulations.

To address that substantively, the epithets that are being used by posters here are not “cheap rhetoric”, they are a normal human reaction to mercenary behavior. The explosive intended for Lynn Fairbanks deserves shock and outrage. Threatening researchers’ property, life and children ought to provoke disgust.

It’s not a rhetorical tactic to use terms of disgust here, and that includes epithets against anyone who would do or encourage anything of the sort, animal rights activist or not.

If we go on to paint all animal rights activists like that, you have right to complain.

Do we need to mention again that we’re not talking about the animal rights activists with which you are personally familiar?

This group that we are talking about engages in rhetoric that is essentially a blood libel on researchers. Whipping people into a frenzy based on lies cannot in any way be equated with people reacting to them based on truth.

And, again, at its core, the only fact that matters to them – that animals are used in experiments – is an uncontested fact and is not accepted on faith.

That seems particularly obtuse to be talking about “at its core”. “The only fact that matters to them” is not merely that animals are used in experiments – with which milder-manner folks like your erstwhile animal activist companions may ‘simply’ be concerned – but that, according to this group’s own announcements and materials, they are being sadistically tortured for fun and that every second that the scientists are left to this wanton butchering, animals are yelping and bleeding whilst the blood-spattered sadists in lab coats laugh and laugh. Well, the exact gruesome scenarios detailed vary.

In a universe in which those sadistic tales were actually true, then the authorities are either collaborating, afraid or ineffectual at shutting down these sadists, justifying these people taking the law into their own hands.

…but this is THIS universe, and that makes them delusional vigilantes in any objective take on the situation.

Why ought that justify them getting handled with rhetorical kid gloves?

Here’s a question for you: are the more gentle animal rights activists you know openly shocked and appalled by these actions of the ALF, or do you know?

Throwing around comments about these people being scum, fascists, glorifying violence, etc should be done with care, because it adds fuel to their fire and marginalises those (like me) who sympathise with their views, if not their actions. I’d also argue it’s an emotive, not a rational, response in a lot of cases – it doesn’t actually further the “what do we do about this” discussion, it just lets you all point at “them” and decry their existence.

Their existence should be decried. They have advocated a violent path with an “ends justify the means” philosophy, if you can call it a philosophy, and it is right to call them out for it. In fact, it’s imperative for the very reason that, if we don’t, the general public might start to wonder if they have a point. Even worse, their bullying tactics will have won.

One thing I find interesting is where PETA and Camille Hankins (of WAR) intersected. The WAR site (war-online.org) has “Justice For Oreo” prominently mentioned on their web page.

Seeing the Oreo story from PETA’s point of view is interesting. From PETA’s blog:

The nice-sounding but damaging “no-kill” movement exposes its lunacy by attacking an agency (the ASPCA) that took in an aggressive pit bull named Oreo from extreme abuse, paid to fix her two broken legs, and then, when she turns out to be far too dangerous and unpredictable around people, affords her a peaceful and dignified exit from the world that has miserably failed her (“Oreo is Dead,” Nov. 13).

Leading the critics is Camille Hankins, the Director of Win Animal Rights, who was convicted of cruelty to animals in 1995 when nearly 100 animals were found stuffed into a tiny, filthy trailer rented by Hankins. Many of the animals found there were dying from contagious illnesses and many were literally scratching themselves to death and had bloody, seeping wounds from severe untreated mange infestations. Two cats removed by police from Hankins during the service of a search and seizure warrant were treated successfully and lived at PETA’s headquarters for more than 10 years (you can read the details of the case here: http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/4612/NC/US/).

If the post is supposed to be a means or indicate a mode of dialogue with AR, then it has some problems. If, however, it’s an information piece, it is as usual, well written and interesting.

I think Woody is taking issue with the post being used in the former sense. I think some people may be missing his point, or they may be taking the post in the latter sense (in which case, people are talking past each other.)

Here’s my take on the problems with approaching this group of AR by calling them fascists, terrorists, etc: it’s unlikely to change their minds.

Animals are used in experiments. These animals may suffer or die.

If you take a consequentialist approach, you need to show that this suffering is justified by the greater good.

If you take a deontological or moral absolutist view, your interpretation of the suffering is based on the moral value that you ascribe to the suffering of animals.

I think we can say that the AR group in question is a moral absolutist group that sees no difference between human suffering and animal suffering. Also, they don’t see “the system” as a valid means of bringing about change, so they are willing to act on their moral convictions, even if it means breaking the law.

The facts in dispute here, the attribution of blood-thirstiness of researchers and the supposed “fetishism”, is obviously something in nede of correcting, but to those AR, it’s likely to be window dressing.

I’d guess they’d see it to be similar to the guards at the site of some genocide honestly and sincerely saying, “well, we’re doing it for the greater good and we gave them pillows.”

Unless you tackle their views on the ethical value of an animal life or their views on the practical means of changing things, you’re unlikely to convince them to change tactics by telling them that the scientists are nice guys who treat animals well and that their intimidation tactics are wrong.

To be clear, I don’t share the views of these ARs and I favour animal experimentation.

It’s a short step from there to extend that to other creatures.

Do you swat mosquitos?

I look at my pup (currently fast asleep next to me) and I see a fellow creature able to enjoy, joke, feel guilty, suffer, and generally share my life. I have trouble coming up with a reason why he should be a candidate for experimentation and I shouldn’t.

To look at it another way, do you see a reason why you should pay income tax and your pup not? Or why you should be required to go to school until a certain age and no other animal should? Should the pup have the right to vote? Do these distinctions between human and non-human animals mean anything to you?

Btw, for those arguing that this is all about a particular case, not AR as a whole, just scroll back up to the first post and re-read it. The _very_ _first_ comment on here calls all of AR a closed-minded religion. For anyone who counts themselves an AR supporter, that sets the tone really quickly.

Kevin, there are two threads going on through the comments on this post, one thread referring to ARA as a whole, the other to Camille, the ALF and violence. The latter is what Orac’s posting was about, but ARA in general was covered in the thread starting with peter, countered by mus, and commented on in general by those recounting their experiences with ARA and animal experimentation.

Woody seems to have trying to smoosh the two threads together haphazardly, to the aggravation of those commenting on Orac’s post (wherein said ARAs are deserved of epithets) and not ARA in general.

By the way, Orac, my apologies on my last linked post. I got the wrong Camille, Hankins of WAR instead of Marino of NIO.

@Dianne – re: my dog being a fully fledged member of society – he doesn’t have the mental capacity to hold down a job or pay his bills on time, so sure, I look after him. But are you arguing that intellectually handicapped people, for instance, would make good test subjects? Better than dogs, perhaps, as they’re more equivalent…

Sorry, this is devolving into the same merry-go-round that it always does. I attempted to outline why the extremists believe what they believe. The literature on this stuff (and the arguments Dianne and I are about to go into) are all well known and spread around the place. I’m sure we’re all very well practiced in both sides (and if you _really_ want, I’m happy to continue the discussion until you find my achilles heel or we bog down in “does not/does too”). But I didn’t post to try and argue that animal experimentation should or should not happen (I did say I think there should be less of it where possible, but I think that’s a moderate enough view it shouldn’t raise hackles, surely?) – I posted specifically to denounce Orac’s accusations in his original post, which I believed to be an unfair characterisation that was likely to lead to more “us/them” rather than a useful response.

@Ritchie, my threading must be broken then, ’cause I have trouble picking out the different lines 😉 All I’ll say is that, as an AR supporter and rationalist, I find the various science blogs (pharyngula, orac, and others) very hostile. I typically ignore these threads because it’s not worth the aggravation – any attempt to introduce moderation in attacks on AR (whether specific or general) tend to lead to your own views being attacked. While I’m happy to spend some time in the debate, I’ve seen too many of these threads flare up and burn out, and am not keen to go through that myself – people get _very_ emotive around this subject very quickly. I admit to being someone who doesn’t like to argue – doesn’t make for the best activist 😉

Ritchie Annand: “They’re not talking about the animal rights activists you know as ‘scum’.”

The sentence I was responding to stated, “On ‘scum’, do you deny the fact that the ARAs are, in fact, low, vile and despicable due to their actions?” No limitation was placed on “the ARAs” so I answered the question put to me. If Todd W. had phrased it differently, I would have answered differently. (Not blaming Todd W. here, just saying.) I’ve already been accused of defending terrorism even after repeatedly decrying those tactics, so I’m not going to assume anyone means anything but what they say.

“It’s not a rhetorical tactic to use terms of disgust here, and that includes epithets against anyone who would do or encourage anything of the sort, animal rights activist or not.”

“If we go on to paint all animal rights activists like that, you have right to complain.”

But here’s exactly where, in my opinion, the rhetoric problem presents itself: when you have to emphasize, “when we say ‘animal rights activists’ and hurl epithets, like ‘scum’ and ‘fascists’ we only have a small subset in mind, so if you are an animal rights activist, and you aren’t the one we’re thinking of, then we don’t mean you,” it makes it difficult for someone like me, who can sympathize with both positions, to understand and appreciate your position.

“Why ought that justify them getting handled with rhetorical kid gloves?”

Well, for one reason: because if you are going to try to convince me of the rightness of your position, making me first try to figure out whether you’re calling me a fascist because I would rather people not stick makeup in rabbits’ eyes, is probably not the best approach.

“Here’s a question for you: are the more gentle animal rights activists you know openly shocked and appalled by these actions of the ALF, or do you know?”

Most of them are opposed to these groups’ tactics, both on moral grounds and because of the similar rhetorical problem I’m talking about here: It does not make for a receptive audience for your position if the first question they have to ask is “Are you one of those people who tried to bomb that scientist.”

As I noted before, one of the most striking differences is that most of those I know do not believe that the scientists are sadists, but merely ethically deaf: they do not understand why the scientists do not accept what to them is a self-evident moral principle.

I fail to see how using “terrorism” and hence “terrorist” to describe tactics which include destruction of property, intimidation, and implied threats of violence, towards a political goal (and face it, it is political – the elimination of animal experimentation if not more), is inappropriate. While I agree that the term is frequently misapplied to “isolated, dangerous idiots,” being “isolated, dangerous idiots” is hardly grounds for exclusion.

(Will we have a new “Bush’s Law” by analogy with Godwin?)

@kevinL

“I look at my pup (currently fast asleep next to me) and I see a fellow creature able to enjoy, joke, feel guilty, suffer, and generally share my life. I have trouble coming up with a reason why he should be a candidate for experimentation and I shouldn’t.”

Well, as has been stated many times in various threads on this topic, humans are part of clinical trials for drugs: they are experimented on.

Also, here are some technical advantages to the use of dogs or other non-human animals (non-primates really): they’re much cheaper than humans to maintain, the gestation period is shorter, as opposed to humans they have offspring in “litters”, their time to adulthood is much shorter (imagine having to keep humans in a cage for 18-20 years before you could use them).

I understand, of course, you have an emotional attachment to your pet. That’s a pretty valid reason why your pet should not be tested on. Much the same as why your pet shouldn’t be someones dinner, even though dogs are eaten in some places.

I have an emotional attachment to my fish, they react to my presence in the room, the follow my actions, if I’m at the tank and point to a corner they go to it etc. However, while I wouldn’t want someone to eat them (also their small size makes this an inefficient proposition) I don’t think Long John Silver’s should be firebombed to keep people from eating any fish.

Douglas,
You demonsrate the the reason why it is not worth talking about his issue with some people. You have no interest in talking about anything, you just assume you must be right.

This was a short post dealing with the aftermath of another post that addressed the issue of violence. One that discussed by animal testings it done, concerns with it etc. Read more of this blog before you post something stupid like that. Then again as they do not conclude that the research community should phase out animal research you will probably not be pleased with them. However, unless you want to sound like a thoughtless asshole you might want to reply addressing the content rather than assuming you must be correct.

(Ignoring the building flames, responding to JohnV’s post)

John,

The emotional attachment is not what I was trying to explain. I was trying to point out that for me (and for most of the AR movement) the animals that are being experimented on have similar faculties to us – they’re aware, they suffer, and therefore they’re due a similar level of respect as humans.

It has nothing to do with emotion. I suggest, if you want to understand that point more, you look to Peter Singer’s books. But the idea that your emotion alters which animals you experiment on is actually fairly obnoxious to many in the AR movement – it’s the “cuddly critters” syndrome, seen most easily in the fact that people will eat pig even though pigs are arguably smarter than dogs, but be horrified at eating dog. There’s no logic applied to the decision.

I use my pup in the discussion to demonstrate because it’s more obvious to people – there’s a difficulty in getting some of these points across because people are, as Woody so nicely put it, ethically blind. So people find it easier to recognise intelligence and awareness in their pets, than in arbitrary other animal examples (even though there’s no difference between the social creature at your feet and the one in the cage at the lab or the slaughterhouse). Therefore, you point at a pet and say “why are they different to you”. The answer, from a non-emotional point of view, should be that they’re not – or if they are, it’s in shades that don’t affect the underlying point, that they are aware of their own suffering. It gets people examining why they differentiate between humans and lab animals, or between one animal and another.

As far as experimentation on humans goes, it’s done under vastly different conditions. Basically, we put animals through things we’d be horrified to see our own species put through, and sometimes quite unnecessarily (see, again, the laws in certain countries about animal testing for some products even though the models are fully formed and legitimate) or stupidly (see, again, the study reported by Ben Goldacre in my previous post).

Don’t treat it as an emotional decision – it’s far from it, it’s quite a rational decision, but based on a different starting point – that we recognise a good measure of our own awareness and intelligence in the creatures around us.

I think the extremists then _get_ highly emotional about what they see, and that’s where their action comes from. It’s understandable – for them, this is a horrific world where violence is perpetrated daily, and it gets too much. That doesn’t in any way excuse them – we don’t accept vigilanteism in our society, we’ve moved on from “an eye for an eye” type justice. But I think it helps to understand where they’re coming from.

The arguments that work best are the ones about how much animal testing has reduced recently, and how steps are being made to reduce it further, how much the oversight committees have improved, and how much more importance is placed now on the lives and welfare of the creatures involved. The main one though is that we reduce our dependence on animal test subjects. Continual improvement on that _should_ be a no-brainer if you can recognise the ability of your subjects to suffer, because none of us wants to cause unnecessary suffering to anyone, human or otherwise.

@daedalus2u, no I don’t – bad vegan, me. Opinions are divided on this one. We have, for reference, one dog and four cats – all rescue cases* of varying types, and yes, they all eat more than their fair share of other animals.

You can get veg food for both dogs and cats – cats in particular it’s tricky because of the taurine requirement, but I believe even that can be met from non-animal sources. However, we tried our dog on the veg food and he wasn’t impressed – he much preferred the meat, so he’s back on that. Cats were similar (well, the one we had at the time was, and we haven’t gone back and tried the others on that food, partially because I still have a niggling concern about balance for cats).

I guess the AR views I’ve seen on pets range from “it’s slavery and shouldn’t be allowed” through “just get rid of them all” (for a couple of reasons, either because they consume too much meat or because people shouldn’t be allowed animals due to systemic abuse of animals in society) through to pretty much where we sit – we have rescue cases and would never buy a pet bred for selling, and we feed them meat largely because that’s what they prefer.

This is one of those places where my beliefs and my actions aren’t entirely in accord. For the greater good, we’d be better off feeding them veg or not having rescued them (and yes, I’ve heard that argument made). Yes, it’s hypocritical, no, I don’t care. I also believe we’re better to have pets in the community than not – it helps people, especially kids, learn about other creatures. I see kids being taught by their parents to fear animals (especially dogs given we have a high muslim population here) and it makes me mad.

I know AR people who have rescue pets and feed them on veg diets, and seem to do well. So it’s certainly doable. As I say, I’ve met AR people who won’t keep pets either because they see it as demeaning to the animal (I believe our domestic critters have been bred _with_ us for so long now that’s not really a valid argument) or because of the cost in other lives to keep them around if they’re eating meat.

So there is some difference in AR circles, depending on the person. I think most people I’ve met have rescue cases and feed them a mix of veg and meat depending on the person and the animal.

(*) Pup was rescued from an ex-friend whose girlfriend left him there after a bad split-up, he was covered in fleas and desperate for company when we found him and stole him; the cats have variously been found in a creek, in a storm drain, under the wheel arch of a neighbour’s car, and at the back of a pub.

Orac, although I agree with you that the people who did this are criminals and should be punished, I disagree with you on the issue of animal rights. I have seen Respectful Insolence listed on the blogs of Speaking of Research. Here’s from SoR’s page on “AR Beliefs”:

“Animals (in research or otherwise) are no more innocent than they are guilty. In order to be guilty an entity must have a choice of actions, and, knowing the difference between right and wrong, must choose to act out the immoral (“wrong”) action. Animals do not have the autonomous facilities which would allow them to be morally responsible for their actions. We would not accuse a cat of murder when it kills a mouse, or even when a lion killed another of its own specie. Animals are amoral beings, meaning they stand outside the concept of morality, right and wrong, and thus, rights.”

Take a one-year old child. He/she cannot be guilty/innocent because he/she does not have responsibilities, but that doesn’t mean he/she doesn’t have rights.

@daedelus2u, I note (as I have elsewhere) that I’m not here to make a case for my views being better than anyone else’s, just to offer an insight to counter the (I believe) false assertion made by Orac at the start. I’ve also _repeatedly_ _clearly_ stated that I don’t condone or support AR extremists’ actions in any way shape or form – but I understand that this topic tends to lead normally sane people to go blind, so your attempt at putting words in my mouth above is not unexpected. If you believe trying to understand people’s motivations is simply “rationalizing” and that’s bad, then you’re probably not interested in much other than having a shouting match anyway.

Meat eaters throwing around the “how hypocritical are you for letting your pet eat meat” argument are laughable. Really. At the end of the day, yes, I believe if someone chooses to eat meat, I’m not here to override that decision. I believe it’s horrible, but it’s a matter of choice – and this one is a choice he can clearly make (how informed it is is another question, but I’m not convinced most animals wouldn’t do what most humans do – simply go “meh, I don’t care” – so I’m playing the odds, if you look at it like that).

But, at the end of the day, my hypocrisy in this has nothing to do with understanding the extremists at NIO. You’re simply looking to attack someone that’s trying to help, which is an entirely common reaction around this subject. So you’ll excuse me if I don’t bother trying to respond to that one – particularly given I prefaced by saying my actions here are not logically defensible ;). I think the thread has largely run it’s course, anyway.

“If RI is on their blog, it means Orac agrees with their arguments.”

My reasoning skills aren’t great, it takes me a while to work out the simplest things, but I don’t see how that would follow.

Take for example regular poster Calli Arcalle (sorry if I got that wrong) From what I gather Orac feels an incredible amount of disdain towards organised religion and holds prayer as a means of providing help in contempt. (Again this is my impression. I am sorry if it does not accurately reflect your beliefs.) Yet this has not stopped Orac from praising poster Calli and defending him/her if the topic strays to close to religion and someone takes offense to Calli’s belief in god. (I think he/she is Lutheran or Methodist.)

Why would Orac do that if he were the kind of person you described?

Alex–
ok, so instead of challenging Orac on anything he personally has written on animal research (and his verbosity is as legendary in this topic as any other), you challenge him on specific language taken from a third party website that lists RI as one of many pro-test supporting blogs. An odd choice, but whatever.

At any rate, your view on the matter seems to be that animals should have the same rights as one year old humans–or any human who doesn’t have the cognitive or developmental ability to advocate for their own rights, correct? Very well, then. I present you with the hackneyed burning building conundrum: You’re in a burning building with a crate full of 8 week old puppies at one end and a playpen containing four human infants on the other. There is not time to save both groups of innocents. Which do you choose?

@daedalus2u, if someone has to be 100% perfect in their actions before they can observe injustice, then we’re pretty much doomed.

Attacking the moderate voices – those trying to shed light on _why_ the nutters get to where they are – is a sure fire way to leave just the loudest, shrillest voices in the discussion. I note, I said right at the top that this is why I don’t get involved in these discussions – the mention of being veg is enough to garner attacks, let alone trying to actually explain _why_. This is, strangely, more true in the rational blogosphere than anywhere else I frequent. Science is very antagonistic towards AR, and most AR moderates have learnt to hold their tongue rather than speak up because of that.

If you’re convinced that my own failings (of which I am very aware, and certainly not happy – it causes me many qualms, but it is what it is – I try not to rationalise it or make excuses) mean that I have no right to speak up if I see failings elsewhere, then you’re either a better person than I, or very very quiet.

I _am_ disappointed that you seem to believe that we have no reason to try and reduce suffering in labs – regardless of anything else going on in the world, I would have thought that a worthy goal. I also believe reducing the consumption of meat in the world is a worthy goal, whether I manage to live up to my belief or not (and in most of my life, I do). I also believe in green sustainability goals, but own any number of tech gadgets and continue to buy more despite the impact on the environment. I am human, and fail as much as I succeed.

On that note, I really will retire from this discussion, and leave you to the tender mercies of others who are more suited to the personal debate.

@storkdok: That’s an outstanding story. I don’t know what your views are on animal testing but for having been able to administer the best medical care to the 3 convicts who killed your friend and colleague, bravo. That took a lot of… well… many different qualities. I do not believe I could have done this, were I in your place.

My comment from Orac’s first post about the threats to researcher’s children:

“Have any of the animal rights extremists/terrorists, or even the non-violent animal rights supporters thought about the fact that animals are treated with modern medicine? All the advances of modern medicine are used for animals, including treatment of diabetes, thyroid conditions, infectious diseases, treatments for all types of cancers, including chemotherapy and radiation, surgery for orthopedic problems, Cesarean sections for obstructed labor, dental procedures, and many other diseases and disorders? Diagnostic procedures are used such as CT scans and MRI’s and Ultrasound.

The advances made in scientific research benefit not only humans, but all animals as well. I’ve had several dogs treated for various cancers, my dog and cat companions currently for thyroid disorders and diabetes, a couple of dogs had surgery for hip dysplasia, and other disorders.”

@Alex
Before medical school, I did research that involved nude mice and treatment of colon cancer with a bifunctional antibody system, for my Master’s thesis. It was part of the early studies that are now used in some cancer detection (specifically for metastasis) and in some treatments involving antibodies. I have no regrets.

@storkdok: Although I sympathize for what happened with Mike, I disagree with your position. I have heard the argument you gave many times. Most recently, I heard it in the form: “Most Nobel Prizes in Medicine were awarded to researchers who used animals for experiments.” This is true and I do not dispute it. But I believe it is hypocrisy to sacrifice some animals with the hope that their deaths will yield some fantastic medical advancement for other animals later on. For me, it is speciesism and I do not approve of it. Let me make my position crystal clear, so that there is no ambiguity about where I stand: Suppose I get a deadly and painful disease and the only treatment existing is one that was discovered by experimentation on animals. I will refuse the treatment.

@Alex

It was 16 years ago.

As for my other question, I had not seen my question asked or answered by anyone (I only read up on these posts tonight), so I thought I’d ask to see what some people think in regards to medical treatments in humans and in animals.

So if you developed diabetes, you would not take insulin? If you developed cancer, you would not have chemotherapy? If you wanted to have children and needed a tubal reanastamosis, or if you needed a surgical reattachment of a limb or digit, you would not have one? (because all microscopic surgical techniques are practiced by residents first in animals and were developed in animals)
I’m assuming you do not take any prescription medication, because the LD50 is tested in animals, and the testing for medication effects and in pregnancy (teratogenicity) is first performed on animals.
If you needed an organ transplant, you would refuse?
If you needed a heart valve replacement, you would refuse?
If you needed a shunt placement, you would refuse?
If your child was born with a heart defect, you would refuse surgery?
Basically, surgical techniques and medications have all been first developed and tested in animals.

If you had an animal companion that needed surgery or medication, would you refuse? (I guess I’m asking if it is intraspecies, is it any different?)

If there was a therapy or treatment that had been developed (tested and tried) only on humans, would you use it (again, intraspecies)?

I am very interested in the practical application of your ethical system, this is why I ask.

@Alex

I forgot to ask if the animal rights is for vertebrates, or does it include invertebrates? I’m not sure how far it might extend, and is there variability amongst the animal rights folks on how far this extends?

And I forgot to ask if there is variability amongst the animal rights folks in my previous questions as to how far the practical application of animal rights extends?

And I assure you, I am asking because I genuinely want to know how this ethical system is applied practically in everyday life.

@storkdok: Different animal rights groups have different ethical systems. I cannot speak for all groups or for all systems. You will need to ask others if you want a better picture. For example, the few terrorists Orac talks about are also animal rights activists. I disagree with their methods, however. It is also important to note that no ethical system is precise like a Swiss watch: neither mine, nor yours, nor Orac’s.

Personally, “my animal rights”, if I could call them that, do not extend to certain groups such as: insects, bacteria and others. I cannot sketch out precisely which animal makes the cut and which does not but I do have “general” rules.

@Alex

Thank you for answering my questions.

Most of modern medicine has had animal testing in some way. For me trying to apply these ethical positions so as to see another perspective, it is so intertwined in modern medicine and the history of medicine that I would have no way of really drawing a line, other than to pretty much say I would have to forgo medications (including antibiotics) and most surgeries, vaccinations (I forgot to ask you about those)…pretty much the majority of medicine.

I would like to ask one more theoretical question. If you had children, would you also not accept medications, surgery or vaccinations, essentially the same things you refuse?

I totally understand if something is too personal to discuss, btw. I was asking more theoretically, not about actual personal decisions for health problems you have.

@Tyler DiPietro: Never have I heard this argument before. Please proceed further and define “human social context”.

@storkdok: I want to make something clear since you brought it up. I am not inherently opposed to vaccines. I understand that they are a great medical boom (probably the greatest). I understand they saved billions of lives, human and animal. I understand… because I looked at statistics. I understand that anti-vaxxers are a dangerous religious sect which must be stopped. My problem arises on how vaccines are tested. On the question of children, now. I do not plan on having children. This is not because I do not want children but because of other problems we are currently facing, such as overpopulation. There are simply too many of us on this planet and short of employing highly coercive measures, such as China’s One Child Policy, a simpler alternative would be to not have kids or adopt. I could probably write an entire post on my views about having kids but I assure you, I have nothing against those who do have kids.

@Jenbphillips: No problem. As long as the discourse remains civil I don’t mind explaining my views, to the extent that I can. Now, about the puppies and babies. You set an incredible scenario: the house is burning and I can only save one group regardless of how hard I try. In that very drastic case, I must say that I proceed mathematically. I refuse to apply preferentialism and I will probably do this by reflex and won’t even have the time to think about it. Now for a more realistic scenario: the house is burning but there is no magical restriction preventing me from saving both groups. I then attempt to save both to the best of my ability. I also want to say that my “saving model” is incomplete since I do not consider variables such as how far the kids and puppies are from me (thus increasing or lowering the chance I can save one of the groups). I would not withdraw medical treatment from family members based on personal principles if they want it. My beliefs are my own and I refuse to impose them on others. I would point out my disagreement, if I had one, in a civil manner but would not proceed further. As said above, I do not plan on having children for different reasons, one of them being overpopulation so answering that question is meaningless.

@Alex

Thank you for answering my questions. I’ve wanted to ask these questions before. I’ve always wondered how the ethical beliefs would be practically expressed.

Do you remember Baby Fae from 1984? You might be too young to remember, but I assume you might have read about it in the animal rights blogs/information.

@Paul Browne: I did not mean anything wrong about Orac, if that is the way you took it. In comment 106, jenbphillips wrote:

“Alex, please show us where Orac (or anyone else, for that matter) said that a deciding factor on his position on animal research had anything to do with an animal’s ability to tell right from wrong.”

I simply pointed out that RI appears on SoR and I doubt Orac would not want to have his site up there if he did not agree with their arguments about animal testing. I then pointed out my disagreement with one of the pro-testing arguments given at SoR in the section “AR Beliefs”. This is all I’ve done. I agree with you and Orac that animal testing was necessary for the development of many cures (most?), which we refer to as: scientific medicine. But if one is to reject many of these cures on moral or philosophical grounds, the argument is pointless.

@storkdok: I read Orwell’s Animal Farm and Hommage to Catalonia but didn’t have time for 1984 yet, which I hear is his magnum opus. I’ll read it when I can. I’m new to Orac’s blogs and I haven’t read everything he wrote over the years (he writes a lot more than other bloggers!).

@storkdok: Like I said, it depends on which animals. Do I care whether or not some kind of bacteria was harmed during the process of making my tomatoes? No. Do I care if, say, a mammal was harmed? Yes. Now, the standard you set is unrealistic. There is no way to be sure that somewhere along the production line, some animal I care about was not harmed. But there are ways to greatly minimize chances — for example, not eating meat, an obvious choice. As for vaccination, if memory serves, the vaccine is tested on some humans before being given to the rest of the population. I doubt that they are being coerced into accepting it. I may be wrong. I guess you can be picky with my ethical system and accuse me of hypocrisy for not defending the E. Coli bacteria’s right to vote. However, you simply don’t understand that all animal rights activists care for certain groups of non-humans and not others. And each group or even individuals within a group set the line elsewhere as to what they defend. “Animal rights” is simply easier to write than “Certain animals’ rights, depending on the AR group, their specific beliefs and whether or not they are willing to engage in terrorism.”

@daedalus2u: Your entire argument is, in my view, invalid. Never in my comments have I claimed that there is a better way than animal testing to reach spectacular results in modern medicine. I never used the pseudo-science arguments of PETA and others to justify my beliefs. Never have I agreed with the pseudo-science that Orac has debunked in this morning’s post.

“It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. But that’s not the case anymore. Facts matter not at all. Perception is everything.”

Correct in the case of many AR activists who use pseudo-science arguments. However, I never made up my own facts and I never claimed that I know more about biology than the experts, so that argument collapses.

““Truthiness is ‘What I say is right, and [nothing] anyone else says could possibly be true.’ It’s not only that I feel it to be true, but that I feel it to be true. There’s not only an emotional quality, but there’s a selfish quality.””

Again, correct for those who decide to fabricate evidence or support pseudo-science. Again, this is not what I advocated. I simply said that I reject many of these medical advances on moral grounds, as I have done before in the past. Others can accept them or not depending on how they view animal testing.

@mikerattlesnake: As I said before, I do not support animal rights for all animals. I do not support, for example, E. Coli’s right to vote. Whether we can remain entirely devoid of speciesism or not, I will mention further. I have problems with the following arguments:

“With babies, we’re basing their rights on their potential as humans and with the mentally handicap there is still potential for communication and a basis for understanding.”
>> Not necessarily. I doubt seriously that most parents base their baby’s rights on their potential as a human being. Suppose you figure out a way to perfectly predict that your baby will grow up to be the next Hitler. Would most parents give up the baby since the potential to do good is now absent? I hardly doubt this. As for the mentally handicapped, there is not always potential for communication. As Orac has written in another post (I think Autism Woo or something), some people have tried to use pseudo-psychology to communicate with people who were physically paralyzed and failed. Simply because the potential for communication is no longer there does not imply that these people should not have rights.

“In college I had an animal behavior professor who did a pretty good job of whipping personification of animals out of me (except with my cats, but that’s just for fun), and it always seems profoundly simplistic (and equally disrespectful to the animals’ individuality) to treat them like little people.”
>> Good for you. Non-humans are not humans and never have I tried to defend the opposite. I do believe that, for example, it is retarded to name your dog/cat with a name of a celebrity. You have contradicted yourself, however. You have a certain belief of what “individuality” , “disrespectful” and “little people” mean based on your own human experiences with other humans. You have attempted to personify animals by attributing to them human notions of human individuality, respect and a certain form of classism (little people).

“I think it’s alright to be a bit speciesist because we just don’t have the capacity not to be. Even by making assumptions about animal experience based on human experience, we are being speciesist.”
>> No philosophy is perfect but I do pretend that I am at least much less of a speciesist than the people here.

“You can pretend to be above it, and it’s easy when given a hypothetical burning building to choose the 8 dogs (the answer still surprised me because the dogs have a lifespan an order of magnitude lower than the human babies making it a little tougher to quantify their comparitive value), but the reality is that we can’t not be speciesist. You can own it, and frame your argument realistically or you can pretend not to be speciesist and set up hard to justify, morally ambiguous “lines” that you won’t cross.”
>> The same argument can be applied to sexism, racism and other social ills. This does not mean that we should not do everything we possibly can to avoid speciesism. Every system of beliefs, including human rights, is based on notions which are hard to justify and are instead taken as self-evident. Take for example the Constitution of the US: “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” About the 8 dogs, I did not base my choice on lifespan. If I had, in a different scenario where I would have had to chose between a human baby and an old man, I should have chosen the baby. I do not believe that it is morally correct to reject the older human based only, in your own words, on “morally ambiguous “lines”” of conduct.

@daedalus2u: First of all, I would like you to tell me precisely which “facts” I have rejected in order to defend my theory than animal testing is inhumane. Second of all, morality is not science. While in science, we constantly try to break things down and analyze endlessly (I am not saying this in a bad way), in morality certain things are taken for granted. I do not always need to state what “facts” lead to a moral conclusion of mine. I could however make an attempt at this, but it would be far longer than any of the already long comments I have written. Even Orac’s long posts would be short considering how much I would have to write to explain in detail my theory of “animal testing is inhumane” and address possible problems arising from the theory. I would probably have to write an essay of hundreds of pages.

Now for the puppies, I have already disclosed a certain logic behind chosing them: there are 8 puppies and 4 babies. I can go further and analyze other things such as how close both groups are to me and how easy it would be to save one or the other based on distance. Again, what you’re asking would require a very lengthy essay, with many revisions. I cannot do this in one day.

I have seen that many people here are very opinionated about this issue and, as you no doubt have realized, so am I. I’m very interested in pursuing these discussions further if you still want to. I may just be wrong and make a fool out of myself but at least I’ll learn something out of it. That said, I am not very convinced by the arguments I have been given until now. I must, however, due to a busy schedule leave the computer for a while. Until later!

I would just like to mention, having read the first couple comments, that the comparison to religion is extremely apt. I have spent quite a bit of time exploring the leadership/inspiration of the AR terrorism movement and the postmodern extremism carries all of the trappings of religion, excepting the supernatural elements. I have only written a couple of posts thus far, because I have too much on my plate. However, these posts are pretty informative on that count – and there is also video of Dr. Steve Best that I think really encapsulates the insanity nicely.

“In college I had an animal behavior professor who did a pretty good job of whipping personification of animals out of me (except with my cats, but that’s just for fun), and it always seems profoundly simplistic (and equally disrespectful to the animals’ individuality) to treat them like little people.”
>> Good for you. Non-humans are not humans and never have I tried to defend the opposite. I do believe that, for example, it is retarded to name your dog/cat with a name of a celebrity. You have contradicted yourself, however. You have a certain belief of what “individuality” , “disrespectful” and “little people” mean based on your own human experiences with other humans. You have attempted to personify animals by attributing to them human notions of human individuality, respect and a certain form of classism (little people).”

Yes, but I am an admitted speciesist, you claim not to be (nevermind that I wasn’t actually calling them “little people”, I was attributing that description to the way ARA treat them). I am only pointing out the silliness of claiming to not be speciesist and then framing animal rights in human terms. It’s like saying “I’m not racist, I treat everyone as if they were white” only made more ridiculous by the fact that we’re dealing with organisms with entirely different systems of cognition. Even using the word “suffering” when refering to animals being treated poorly is a tough one because, while pain signals are a simple nervous stimulus, “suffering” implies certain things about translation of pain signals, cognition of time, memory, context, etc. For some animals we know more about this than others, but for most we have less than a clear view about what the world is like for them. Most animal rights activists I’ve met wouldn’t even know what I’m talking about, whereas people in a biology lab would probably know a great deal about the level of cognition in the species they were working with.

Sorry, but I get peeved when people claim not to be speciesist because usually they haven’t the faintest idea what kind of mental gymnastics that would require.

@mikerattlesnake: If I previously claimed to be entirely un-speciesist, I apologize. I realize very well that this is not possible for numerous reasons — just like being entirely not racist is impossible. It is very clear that you did not read my entire response to your comment however, since I had clearly written this:

“No philosophy is perfect but I do pretend that I am at least much less of a speciesist than the people here.”

It’s also very interesting that I have made 4 counter-points to your original comment and yet you only chose to address one of them — ironically, the weakest.

@storkdok: I don’t understand. Many medications, such as vaccines are tested on consenting humans. Check the safety report for, say, the H1N1 vaccine. The one we had in Canada says that it was tested on two groups of people in Belgium, if I recall correctly. It is as easy to figure out who or what it was tested on as it is to figure out the working conditions of say, those who made my clothes. Again, I don’t care whether they are cute or fuzzy, I care that they are animals.

@Prometheus: Are you sure about this? I don’t remember seeing anything on the product info sheet for the H1N1 vaccine that said anything about testing on animals. And yes, I understand that we are also animals. I meant non-human animals (not homo sapiens). There’s no point in taking homeopathic meds since they’re not real meds. I suppose I should have pointed this out earlier: if I take a certain medicine I expect it to have an effect other than suggestion. If what you say is correct, I will have to radically change what I have said in the comments above, since this also places me in the “guilty” group but I want to see evidence of this.

@daedalus2u: Then I hope I’ll never need surgery.

@daedalus2u: Then no more of that either.

Hi Alex,
thanks for sticking with us. I’ll jump back into the discussion by reiterating storkdok and Prometheus in that if you truly want to avoid all animal-tested medicine it will be impossible for you to use the ‘cafeteria’ approach you have outlined for us. If one degree of separation (i.e animal testing was used for development but is no longer used in current applications) is sufficient for you, as is the case with most ‘cruelty free’ cosmetic products as well as the aforementioned influenza vaccines, insulin, etc., then you do have a few more options. However I believe you rejected insulin as an acceptable treatment upthread, so I’m not sure what your criteria are.

In trying to establish some guidelines for your animal rights advocacy, you say:

Here’s a start: vertebrates. Now, let me guess. Your following comment will be something like: “But what about the exotic proto-something which survives by sucking the life out of it’s fellow proto-something vertebrates? Do you really think that has any rights? Huh?”

First, the argument from “this creature is ugly/mean/icky–kill it!” is asinine. I’m certain you haven’t heard that from any of the pro-test scientists you’ve been engaging with here. I would, however, ask why you have excluded the cephalopod from your ‘worth saving’ list. I’m guessing that you wouldn’t, in which case you will have to reconceive the position of your ‘line’.

@jenbphillips: I admit I did not hear that here but it seems like a common pro-animal testing argument. Google pro-animal testing or something similar and you will find blogs were people who uphold animal rights are derided with this kind of argument. It’s easy to pick some rare animal no one outside the domain ever heard of or rarely heard of and use it as counter-example. You have done something similar, however. I said “Here’s a start: vertebrates.” And you’re asking me why I excluded the cephalopod. Now that we think about it, why did I exclude the jellyfish? Obviously, it’s one of the animals which comes to mind first. Again, I cannot give a precise outline of what my ethical system is but I do believe that vertebrates are a logical place to start. From then, it becomes debatable what gets or does not get added and why. Again, other ARA will have different systems of ethics. I now know from other comments here that I cannot use the “cafeteria approach”, as you call it.

@Tyler DiPietro: As is well known, many primates close to the human being, such as bonobos have the emotional capacities of a 4-years old and understand social contracts very well. Please go check EMJ’s recent post about bonobos where he discusses his research on it. This is just another case of the old, arrogant human exceptionalism.

@storkdok: No problem. I appreciated the discussion. And if I may shed further light on why ARA are many times so extreme in their actions. Consider this: most ARA see other animals as entirely equal to human beings. When they hear that an animal is killed for scientific purposes, they are as outraged as you would be if you heard that say, one of your family members was killed for those reasons. Imagine what you would do in this kind of situation. Now look at those extreme ARA again. See someone you know?

@Alex

No, I don’t. There is no comparison of family members to an animal that they don’t even know who is “killed”.

@storkdok: You would be surprised by what many ARA believe, but I digress. Thanks for the discussion.

“Not necessarily. There are many children who are born handicapped or develop a mental handicap later in life. There are also many adults who become mentally handicapped later in life. I doubt that you would apply the standards you apply to animals to them as well.”

No, I wouldn’t. And it’s for the same reason as I wouldn’t apply them to four year olds. There are substantial differences that make the consideration different.

“It makes them a different consideration for you. For me, it does not.”

And why not?

Consider an analogous situation: we have an obligation as a society to care for our mentally handicapped and our young. Do we have that same obligation for all non-human animals? From what I see, even the most hardcore ARA would find it absurd to argue such a thing. This example illustrates that the considerations are substantially different.

“If those substantial differences are resumed to arguments about “natural kinship” or “communion”, I disregard them.”

That would probably be because you have no defense against them, these things obviously exist and obviously influence our moral decisions about them in the real world.

“Until now the only things you have done are these”

So instead of countering my arguments you decide to make a number of misleading statements about the debate as it’s proceeded. I have little patience for liars, but I will cordially refute your misrepresentations one by one:

“You started at a position attempting to oppose animal rights because animals cannot meet “social contracts”. I disproved this with the bobonos.”

No you didn’t, you claimed that they had the emotional capacity of four year olds and that this implied the ability to create social contracts. I said that what you were pointing to were premoral sentiments, not social contracts. (Hint: social contracts are laws).

“You changed your position (implicitly) to one where the new discriminant is the ability “to abstractly reason about their conduct”. I pointed out that many humans are in a situation where they cannot do this either, yet you do not consider them animals.”

I pointed out this criterion in my first post and simply reiterated it in subsequent posts. My position did not “change”. Your “refutation” was simply to reiterate your argument that children cannot reason abstractly about their conduct, even though I had already pointed out why the considerations are different for them.

“3) You attempt to justify your answer at 2) by saying that it’s the same reason you “wouldn’t apply them to 4 years olds”. Which reason? Social contracts or ability for abstraction? I have answered to both already.”

And here you’re obviously deliberately misrepresenting my argument. I argued that the human social context was predicated on certain cognitive capabilities that non-human animals lack, and that even if some humans lack these things, they still exist in that social context. Non-human animals don’t.

“Incorrect. There are many societies, such as Nazi Germany, which did not care for their mentally handicapped or young. Let me be clear: I do not advocate living in such a society. However, this proves that we do not have “obligations” as a society, but instead we make “choices” as a society. The difference is phenomenal.”

I see. The crucial difference that my post illuminated should be disregarded because Hitler. You’re desperation is becoming palpable.

So we instead make “choices” as a society. Do you advocate making the “choice” I outlined (but you failed to quote)? If not, what motivates you to distinguish between human children and mentally handicapped humans and non-human animals?

Furthermore, you’re trying to muddy the waters by taking this from a discussion of ethics to a discussion of meta-ethics. It may surprise you that, meta-ethically, I also have anti-realist tendencies, but that has little relevance to the discussion at hand. If you wanna go there, however…

“You’ve invented two concepts which you did not even clearly define. I have no defense against that?”

So I invented the concepts of communion and kinship? Perhaps you should make recourse to a dictionary.

“Second of all, I have here a paper that shows that animal rights can be included into social contract theory”

So please summarize how animals can observe the laws and conditions of the social contract.

“And you can say whatever you want, but to go from “human social context” to “abstractly reason about their conduct” does show a change of position.”

I already explained why this was a misrepresentation, but like the lying piece of shit you’ve demonstrated yourself to be, you continue to misrepresent it. Although I will concede one error, it wasn’t in my first post that I explained what I meant by “human social context.” I did that after you asked me to.

“Again, considering the paper I referenced above, I want you to explain your certainty about why “Non-human animals don’t”.”

Show me the animal society that has developed a social contract. The paper you cited does not do this, it rather argues that non-human animals can be accommodated into existing social contracts created by humans. I think the argument is absurd, but I’m not gonna refute a whole paper that was just dropped into my lap in a comment thread.

“Clearly, you did not understand. I picked the Nazis because they are the most obvious counter-example to the idea of “social obligations”.

This is a hilarious non-sequitor, but unfortunately I’ll have to defer ridiculing it since I don’t want to let you muddy the waters further.

“I still don’t understand what “crucial difference” you believe to have made.”

I asked you a question point blank, and you have thus far refused to answer it. Do you think that we, as a society, should care for all non-human animals in the same manner as we care for the mentally handicapped and children? If not, then you are de facto making a distinction in the ethical status of human children/the mentally disabled and non-human animals.

“There is no “social obligation” acting as a barrier for animal rights.”

I didn’t even make the case that it was necessarily a barrier, and ARA could just as easily argue that we a “social obligation” to non-human animals that equals that of humans. But that’s irrelevant: whatever notional entities your ethical theory is predicated on, there are obvious distinctions that are made when we consider mentally handicapped humans/human children and non-human animals. You’ve yet to answer for that.

“Ethics is a set of philosophies trying to answer questions related to morality. Meta-ethics is a subset of Ethics trying to answer questions relating to morality such as: “What is right?” Can you be more precise in what you’re accusing me of relating to ethics and meta-ethics?”

Going off on the “social obligation” tangent is exactly what I’m talking about. It’s a meta-ethical theory that has no relevance when we’re talking about a specific ethic.

Alex @ 146:

I can establish a few general guidelines, which may come into conflict since, again, this is a system of values and will inevitably be interpreted differently by different individuals when values come into conflict. Here’s a start: vertebrates. Now, let me guess. Your following comment will be something like: “But what about the exotic proto-something which survives by sucking the life out of it’s fellow proto-something vertebrates? Do you really think that has any rights? Huh?”

Just because I like weird stuff, I’ll offer some random factoids about our beloved animal kingdom:

* Several vertebrates parasitize others. Famous examples include the hagfish and the lamprey, which are rather repulsive looking but quite important fish. Less-well-known is the male anglerfish, which displays the most extreme sexual dimorphism of any known vertebrate. While the female is a fairly large (and ugly) ambush predator, the male is a tiny wriggling thing whose sole purpose in life is to find a female. Once he finds one, he bites into her flesh. Over time, his body grows into hers and establishes a blood supply. His internal organs wither away, leaving only his gonads — his sole function is the production of sperm. This was a recent discovery; for a long time, scientists believed free-floating male anglerfish to be a different species, and mistook the attached males for peculiar tumors.

* One vertebrate will surprise most people, because it doesn’t look like a vertebrate. Sea squirts have no central nervous system. But in fact, they are members of Chordata. After a free-swimming larval stage, they attach themselves to the sea floor at a suitable location. Then they essentially eat their central nervous system, as it no longer has a purpose. They spend the rest of their lives as stationary filter feeders.

* Medical researchers have a hard time studying nerves, largely because they’re so darn small. Luckily, there is an invertebrate which can help out: the squid. This intelligent and social cephalopod group includes some very large species, some of which are easily caught by fishermen. They possess the largest nerve cells of any animal, and are thus invaluable for studying nerves. Their large eyes are surprisingly similar to vertebrate eyes, and are also very useful for study.

* Squid are not the only invertebrate used as an analog for medical research. The lowly nematode is used for study of embryonic development. This is because some very tiny species are transparent (making it easy to examine them while still living) and possess a very small number of cells, making it easier to track where the descendants of their embryonic stem cells wind up.

in this series of threads, i was a bit put off at first by what i perceived as anti-ARA (not anti-violence or anti-intimidation, with which i would fundamentally agree) sentiments. and i’m not remotely interested in or impressed with any argument which tries to semantically categorize “animal rights” versus “animal welfare,” without the knowledge, concurrence, or understanding of the participants involved. many people (i included) would consider themselves “animal rights activists” without believing that terrorism, violence, or intimidation is an acceptable means of facilitating change. therefore, the consistent use (and defense of) the term ARA to describe individuals who promote the use of those tactics is inaccurate, imprecise, and, quite frankly, insulting.

@Callie #144, to clarify (i am not trying to provoke an argument with you here, but merely trying to help you and others understand why the tension was there in the first place), you said, “I hope you understand that, for instance, when I describe Osama Bin Laden as a murderous psychopathic bastard, I do not feel the same way about Muslims in general.”

that would be a very valid point, if many of the posters here had made it clear that their condemnation was of individuals or their actions. however, the vast majority of the posters here have been rather vague in their application of the term “ARA,” and have used the term liberally and without a clear definition or understanding of the range of opinions inherent in the numerous ARA movements. that would seem very similar to saying, “muslims are murderous psychopathic bastards” and then backpeddaling and saying, “well, i really meant osama bin laden, not all muslims.” again, i don’t really want to get into an argument over this and have nothing but respect for you. i only want to explain why some of the misunderstandings arose.

there seems to be alot of expectation here by several of the “pro-testing” posters that those involved in the ARA movement must be able to apply their ethical and moral values with perfection, lest they fall victim to some semblance of hypocrisy. to that i would say, none of us are perfect, and none of us are without some semblance of hypocrisy. but that does not mean we should not strive for a meaningful application of our beliefs to the best of our ability. it is a step in the right direction; we do what we can as imperfect beings in an imperfect world. lack of perfection and inability to control everything in our environment is not an excuse for ethical laziness. we do what we can.

to those of you who have contributed to a meaningful and civilized discussion here, thank you so much! some of the posters, on both sides of the argument, have been an inspiration! that said, some of you are argumentative, raging assholes who clearly have no desire whatsoever to facilitate dialogue.

thanks again to those of you who persevered through the nonsense and bullshit and ad hominem attacks to get to real discussion. i found it infinitely refreshing.

Hey, no need to apologize; I’ll answer to anything approximating my userid with no offense taken. 😉

Yes, I do understand where the tension comes from. It’s a bit like the abortion debate, in that the labels can force people into an “us versus them” mentality. One starts to think that there are only two sides, when in fact there are many positions along the spectrum of opinion. It’s not an easy problem to avoid, though, as human language is limited.

thanks for the responses, calli and jenb.

@calli: i think you indeed make a very good point about the limitations of language.

at risk of exposing my own hypocrisy (because, i, myself, have far too often been imprecise in my passionate application of words, and sometimes even just do it for fun for the effect that it gets or the point that it makes) i would just hope to remind everyone that in any communication, especially one which is emotional (such as one’s moral values), any application of “loaded” terms should be very carefully considered for their contribution to the subject matter and fundamental understanding. it would probably save us all alot of frustration if we could just say what we really mean! that’s so hard when we’re passionately trying to defend what we think is “right,” but it’s a worthwhile goal.

of course, some people, as i mentioned, aren’t trying to “understand” or to find a solution, they’re trying to “win.” and that kind of attitude (e.g., certain ARA using false propaganda and intimidation to further their position) is what got this blog written in the first place. in my opinion, it’s not helpful when either “side” does it. that doesn’t mean that one “side” isn’t more culpable than the other, only that two wrongs don’t make a right.

@jenb
please don’t worry about whether i’ve categorized you in the “raging asshole” comment. often i say such things in a purposefully-ambiguous way simply because i don’t think it would be effective to make the conversation about a single person’s behavior or beliefs. and in this case, because i read through many of the animal rights threads over a single day (while i was up and around doing other things) by now i couldn’t tell you which people i meant anyhow! so i guess i would say, if the shoe fits, prance around in it, darlin’, and if it doesn’t, then just assume i wasn’t talking about you!

jenb, you said,”This position must be comprised of more than a vaguely (however heartfelt) defined sense of right or wrong or fairness…”

i agree that everyone of all stripes should should examine their belief systems and strive to hold values which are rational and logically tenable. and that we should all make an effort to minimize hypocrisy and conflicting moral values wherever possible. there’s nothin’ worse than a bunch of crazies adhering to positions which simply aren’t grounded in reality or logic!!! but i would also venture to say that neither “side” of the anti-testing/pro-testing debate is fully able to defend or integrate their views without some measure of selective hypocrisy. those of us who think about it, consider it, weigh the pros and cons of either conclusion, we still have to decide where to draw the line, what is more important to us, what has to be sacrificed. such is life. if one side could simply say, “x implies y. y implies z. x, therefore z. q.e.d” all of us thinking logical rational individuals could just say “ooooh, okay! and move along with our lives in agreement. but it’s not that simple. moral values are tricky. they’re complex, and ugly! we get bogged down in them. academic philosophers spend their entire lives arguing about these things (kantian versus utilitarian, for example), and still can’t agree! and for most rational, thinking people, values develop and change, are fine-tuned, over an entire lifetime of experience. we simply don’t have the time or ability to be fundamentally hypocrisy-free creatures, so we make incremental steps towards resolving our cognitive dissonance when the opportunity arises. that is why these types of discussions can be so very helpful for the open minded. but it’s hard to be open minded when someone only wants to “win” at your expense rather than engage in meaningful discussion or debate.

i think back to studying aristotelian philosophy, and being asked to write papers rendering aristotle (the father of modern logic!) consistent over the course of an entire lifetime of writings, and wanting to simply write, “maybe he was just pissed off or drunk that day!” we aren’t always consistent. we aren’t always rational. we do the best we can. we change. we grow. we (hopefully) become better able to defend our views. i would venture to argue that we wouldn’t want to be only-rational even if we could (do you rationally fall in love?). we do what we can.

i don’t want to get into my personal beliefs in this debate. i applaud those above, such as woody and kevinL, who were willing to sit in the hot seat in an effort to further understanding, though. i think they said alot of things that help clarify some of the issues, but i also think that anyone who truly wanted to consider both sides of the argument could have done so without relying on them.

please keep in mind that none of us are the elected mouthpieces for an entire movement. the “movement” is fragmented, the beliefs are varied, and even among the ARA’s who believe in intimidation and violence there is alot of disagreement as to where the line is, for instance, is property destruction acceptable? or threatening children? god, i have been involved in political activism most of my life (not with anti-testing but with other issues) and there is so much fucking bickering over this or that tactic, belief, statement, etc., that it makes me wanna claw my own fucking eyes out! even in the pro-test camp, you will find some who say, “yes, rodents, no, primates.” or “yes, drosophila melanogaster, no mammals.” or, to make the point more salient, “yes non-human animals, no, humans.” and that is why i’ve tried to put “sides” in quotation marks. i think, for the most part, rationally thinking people on both “sides” have the same goal (to minimize, and, if possible, eliminate the need for the use of animal testing). we just disagree on the methods and urgency of getting there.

thank you so much for engaging with me. i know i didn’t do much to further either “side” of the argument. believe me, if i thought i had all the answers, i would just pol-pot it up and get my dictator on!

Wow. Well as a staunch supporter of animal testing who opposes ARA extremism in every context and has no relation to SML above, I can certainly say who the Raging Assholes were in this thread. Raging Bee and Tyler DiPietro comported themselves in a shameful manner with insults and invective where none were needed and just got in the way of having a reasonable discussion.