An animal rights zealot faces her comeuppance

Animal-rights whacking is the new groovy thing these days…especially as the Beef&Bacon Big Boys got the heebie-jeebies bad… thanks to all the undercover vids rolling in.

One might say though, that the pertwitzed Ms. Marino no more represents mainstream animal-rights then Fred Phelps represents Baptists or Dr. Mengele represents physicians.

The fringe is fun, of course.
On a slow day.

Obligatory rhetorical question about why these creeps target scientists and students rather than, say, hunters.

Or genuine animal abusers.

We had this in the UK. At first the more violent were described as fringe, nut-job etc and were not taken that seriously even by the police except by the people who were attacked. Of course they gained confidence from the lack of action against them.

One incident was the firing of a rock from a hunting catapult through a window, curtains and embedding in a piano some 30 feet away. This could easily have been lethal and it was pure luck that nobody was injured. The vehicle they used was identified and the same vehicle was apprehended by the police within an hour and a hunting catapult, similarly sized rocks and ball bearings were found. No action was taken by the police on the grounds we couldn’t identify the individual who had used the catapult.

It was many years before the police were convinced to take action but finally the central gang was arrested and convicted. The investigation showed how the more moderate protesters of vivisection were supporting the psychos either directly or through fund raising.

So I advise taking this seriously and forcing action as soon as possible.

For instance, is there no ‘Incitement to violence’ crime in the USA?

Anj. if you were to spend a great deal of your life involved in rescue, you would understand better.
There is a vast difference between saving/rescuing and saving/hoarding.
.
A true hoarder of anything, be it plastic bags or poodles…by definition NEVER willingly parts with whatever they are hoarding, regardless of and without thought to the consequences.
For a rescue to turn ‘hoarder’, the end result might be the same but the motivation is entirely different.
A rescue turned ‘hoarder’ has tried countless times to find homes for unwanted animals in their care…
And failing this, they turn, in desperation, to keeping them…
The angst of so many homeless hopeless animals in one’s immediate care slowly begins to blind one to the realities of the difficulties involved in caring for so many.

May I suggest that you might revisit the part where they say ‘walk a mile in a man’s shoes’
before judging too harshly.

(recreating a comment that was sent just as I lost connectivity – apologies if there is any duplication)

My understanding is that Marino’s “feefeeble-minded proxies” have redoubled their vile harassment of Donal O’Leary, demanding that he drop his charges against her.

In point of fact, the charges are not Dr. O’Leary’s, nor does he have any power to have the charges dismissed.

Camille Marino is facing criminal contempt of court charges, which were drawn up by the judge in the case.

Marino, by her words and actions in defiance of the court, brought the charges upon herself.

@8
andreas johansson asked

Obligatory rhetorical question about why these creeps target scientists and students rather than, say, hunters.

Because we tend to shoot back?

fusilier

James 2:24

On her blog, Marino refers to Dr. O’Leary as a “war criminal”. That tells me a lot about her justification for her behavior. She views herself as being at war (with “the establishment”, I presume) and therefore the traditional rules of acting responsibly and in accordance with the law simply no longer apply to her. This goes way beyond free speech and has ventured into the territory of treason and should be investigated and prosecuted as such, IMHO.

Thanks for picking this up Orac, it was very satisfying to learn of Marino’s arrest, now I just hope that she gets a decent stretch of jail-time.

Camille Marino is a a violent and unhinged extremist, there’s no doubt about it, and her pretensions that what she does is free speech protected by the first amendment don’t fool anyone apart from her minions and supporters (including a certain professor at UTEP http://speakingofresearch.com/2011/12/20/best-of-friends-university-of-texas-professor-helps-to-fund-extremism/). Her behavior even got the attention of the SPLC – no strangers to all forms of extremism – who describe her as “radical animal liberation activist who advocates violence against scientists who use animals in their research” http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2012/02/06/radical-animal-rights-activist-arrested-at-university-of-florida/

Terry Ward “One might say though, that the pertwitzed Ms. Marino no more represents mainstream animal-rights then Fred Phelps represents Baptists or Dr. Mengele represents physicians.”

Don’t be so sure, it’s clear from media coverage and FaceBook comments (e.g. http://www.gainesville.com/article/20120206/ARTICLES/120209643/1150/news09?Title=Two-animal-rights-activist-arrested-at-protest) she has been working closely in recent weeks with an animal rights campaigner named Michael Budkie, whose group -Stop Animal Experimentation Now (SAEN) – likes to portray itself as a mainstream “watchdog” organization, and frequently gets media coverage with its allegations.

While we’re used to SAEN’s inaccuracies and misrepresentations, for a few examples out of many see http://speakingofresearch.com/2010/10/29/defending-against-the-inaccurate-and-sometimes-downright-false/, he has in the past distanced himself, in public at least, from the more violent extremists; that mask appears to be slipping.

`dandover` | February 8, 2012 8:36 AM mentions
that Ms Marino called “Dr. O’Leary a “war criminal”.
If Dr. O’Leary is a member of the Harvey animal test cult,
technically, they never surrendered formally
from their state of war against their fellow
citizens(effectively a world war including North
America)when their allies did in 1646.
As their commander in chief(CharlesI) WAS convicted of
war-crimes AND treason,they are still
technically accomplices to that,and have never denied it.

Orac:

On the other hand, as much as I despise the woman, it’s a little concerning how she was arrested, basically for nothing more than having an expired drivers’ license, and how she’s been held.

Although in my state, expired driver’s licenses remain valid forms of identification, that isn’t true in Florida. According to the article, presenting an expired license as a form of ID is a midemeanor. I would suspect this has something to do with the relatively high rate of illegal immigration in that state. For a misdemeanor, one would probably normally be booked, arraigned, given a court date, and then released on their own recognizance. But once they ran her ID and found out about the violated court order, I’m sure the judge would not have been keen to do that.

Acleron:

For instance, is there no ‘Incitement to violence’ crime in the USA?

Yes, there is, but proving it beyond a shadow of a doubt can be difficult; IANAL, but I think you have to prove the defendent meant it as an incitement to violence rather than just saying stupid stuff or speaking metaphorically. (Stupidity and metaphors are generally protected speech. Death threats aren’t. In the end, it would probably come down to the quality of the lawyers.) I think it’s more often used as probable cause than as an actual criminal charge.

This is really good news…and certainly ironic that she got arrested for an expired driver’s license. I looked up the Florida statute that applies:

Florida Statute 322.03 (5) applies to a driver whose license is expired for more than 4 months. It is a 2nd Degree Misdemeanor and a Criminal Traffic Charge. Penalties include 6 months County-supervised probation or 60 days in a County jail and/or $ 500 fine.

Was the renewal an “oversight” on her part or did she have unpaid moving or parking violations, that must be paid with late fees and fines before she could renew her license? Perhaps there were other civil judgments against her as well.

She is scheduled to be extradited to Michigan for violating the court order to remove the vicious threats made against Dr. O’Leary.

It’s about time that Universities crack down on these cranks who stalk their staff and their students.

#3
The reason they don’t is because we shoot back 🙂

No seriously, hunters perform an important service. If you had an overpopulation of deer you wind up with an overpopulation of wolves which is much, much worse.

As far as Ms Marino goes Orac, she brought this on herself. She presented an expired license, which the cop ran as a standard course of procedure. It came back she had a warrant for a violent crime. He arrested her. Period. Had she presented an unexpired license most likely nothing would have happened to her.

If you had an overpopulation of deer you wind up with an overpopulation of wolves which is much, much worse.

I like wolves, but not near human population centers. Also deer bring deer ticks which are dangerous. Hunt away, but save the drinking until after you put your guns away, please.

I’ve recently considered making my thesis about domestic terrorists, so this is excellent timing. She’s actually lucky they haven’t considered her a terrorist, yet. She pretty much fits the general definition.

This reminds me of a Drew Carey episode where Mimi is working the cosmetics counter and is asked if the cosmetics were tested on animals. “Yes, and they looked marvelous,” she replies.

In all seriousness, though, it’s not like these academic researchers are doing their work without IRB oversight. From what I remember when I was in school, you had to explain in detail what procedures you were going to use on the animals and how you would minimize their pain and prevent suffering. If you deviated one bit from that, your entire funding could get pulled and your project shut down.

Am I right?

Then why won’t she target IRBs (in a rational way) to make the restrictions even more stringent. I read her accounts of experiments on dogs at Wayne State, and it’s quite clear from my perspective that they’re either anecdotes or not based at all in reality.

@ Kelly #22

That’s also why you see the ARAs throwing blood on women wearing fur coats and not on bikers wearing leather. It’s hard to look tough and bully someone who can beat the crap out of you.

@Calli Arcale

The standard of proof in all criminal cases in the United States is beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond a shadow of a doubt. Probable cause is what is required to get a charge to trial. Of course laws vary from state to state, but many states have some form of “terroristic threats” which means you can’t say things about hurting someone that puts that person in fear that you might actually carry your threats out out. People are convicted of it all the time.

@ Ren #30

You’re thinking of IACUCs (animal care and use committees)…IRBs cover human subjects. They serve the same purpose – maintaining ethical & humane standards. And yes, you have to fill out a long form and go in front of a committee which includes veterinarians & ethicists before you can start your study. They can & do reject studies.

This lovely woman is 100% against all animal testing, so she doesn’t care about IACUC oversight. She wants the whole system destroyed.

One thing to remember about IACUC and IRBs is that they are required to have a member of the community at large on them. So a person who is concerned about animal welfare (or human welfare, for that matter) is always welcome to volunteer for an IACUC or IRB and participate in efforts to ensure that experimentation is humane and sensible. You’d think animal rights activists would be drawn to them, but apparently not.

It can’t be a crime to posess an expired drivers license. It is a crime to drive using an expired drivers license.

The Florida statutes are so heavily cross-referenced that I’m having trouble getting a bearing on it, but it appears that they might have a general surrender requirement akin to an address-update requirement. I’ve seen one story reporting that Grossman had a suspended license, which Fla. Stat. 322.251 definitely requires surrender of.

For any OPEN minds on here, some info and research:
Animal Welfare or Animal Rights?

Here are some of the differences:
As animal welfare advocates. . .

• We seek to improve the treatment and well-being of animals.
• We support the humane treatment of animals that ensures comfort and freedom from unnecessary pain and suffering.
• We believe we have the right to “own” animals — they are our property.
• We believe animal owners should provide loving care for the lifetime of their animals.

As animal rights activists. . .

• They seek to end the use and ownership of animals, including the keeping of pets.
• They believe that any use of an animal is exploitation so, not only must we stop using animals for food and clothing, but pet ownership must be outlawed as well.
• They want to obtain legal rights for animals as they believe that animals and humans are equal.
• They use false and unsubstantiated allegations of animal abuse to raise funds, attract media attention and bring supporters into the movement.
• (The Inhumane Crusade, Daniel T. Oliver – Capital Research Center)
For more information:
http://www.cfodconline.org/
http://www.humanewatch.com
http://www.bewareanimalradicals.com
http://www.petpac.net/
http://www.exposeanimalrights.com/
http://www.naiaonline.org
http://www.saveourdogs.net
http://www.nathanwinograd.com
http://www.saova.org

http://www.gainesville.com/article/20120206/ARTICLES/120209643

Camille Marino and Lisa Grossman, part of the animal rights group Negotiation is Over, were protesting outside the Gator Gala awards ceremony at Emerson Alumni Hall. Gainesville police arrested Marino on an out-of-state warrant and Grossman for a suspended driver’s license.

Powerful pieces of law ‘out of state/extradition’ warrants

@ sophia8 and @ kruuth REALLY??? genuine animal abusers? and hunters are doing a service? Are you kidding? Is that what you all tell yourself so you can sleep at night? and So you can do your so called “Jobs” Which is scientific fruad at the tax payers expense

Nature manages itself through size of habitat, availability of food and water, natural predators, severe weather conditions. Urban development’s destruction of wildlife habitat calls for the establishment of refuges—not sport hunting. If hunting is “necessary” to control overpopulation and prevent “nuisance-animals,” why is this argument applied only to white-tailed deer? Reality: Most states deliberately boost deer populations to provide prey for hunters. State game agencies allow hunting to “manage” artificially stimulated “surplus animals.” There are no surpluses in nature. Ecology functions in natural cycles.
White-tailed deer account for only 2% (6 million) of the 200 million animals killed yearly by hunters. 25% (50 million) are morning doves and 15% (30 million) are squirrels. Millions more are geese and ducks. Have you ever heard the wildlife-management excuse applied to doves, ducks, or geese? In fact, wildlife managers restrict waterfowl killings so that species don’t become extinct! Sport hunting does not exist to manage wildlife. Sport hunting exists as “enjoyable recreation.”

O’leary’s experiments were painful and unnecessary. They have been not over seen well. They have drawn the complaint of PCRM ,a well respected group. http://www.pcrm.org/pdfs/research/research/WayneStateUSDAComplaint101911Final.pdf
Some people when they see the voiceless being tortured use the tools they have at hand. I don’t agree with violence but peaceful protests are a right.

O’leary’s experiments were painful and unnecessary. They have been not overseen well. They have drawn the complaint of PCRM ,a well respected group. http://www.pcrm.org/pdfs/research/research/WayneStateUSDAComplaint101911Final.pdf
Some people, when they see the voiceless being tortured ,use the tools they have at hand. I don’t agree with violence but peaceful protests are a right.

Terry do you know Camille, do you know that she is “Unhinged” no you don’t, that is the vivisectionist tactic is to dismiss Animal Rights people as crazy. It takes the heat off of you. There are some who will do what it takes to get you to stop. You know your fake experiments that you perform with your goverment grants that you get based on lies that the pharmacutical companies tell because after all money makes the world go round! follow the money

You know your fake experiments that you perform with your goverment grants that you get based on lies that the pharmacutical companies tell because after all money makes the world go round! follow the money

That sounds like an animal rights wingnut tactic. No has to “know” someone personally to make an obvious assumption about their character, particularly when that person vomits their detritus all over the interwebz. And gee, no one made a cent on my animal testing but I did produce some stellar results that benefit sorry little gits like you.

Science Mom, your tests will never ever benefit me or anyone. that is another lie you people tell yourselves. Animals and humans react differently to substances and some drugs are carcinogenic in humans but not in animals, or vice-versa.
So how can you extrapolate accurate results? My mother what given Benedictine for morning sickness, proved safe on rats and monkeys my brother was born severely mentally retarded. What you do is fake scientific fruad

Benedictine? The liqueur, the condiment, or the monk of the Order of St. Benedict?

Scientific “fruad (sic)” or not, you need to back up your claims with evidence, Alafair. Tell us what you call “Benedictine” and cite some source where it is linked to mental retardation in utero. Should be easy, right?

Ren just google Bendictine and morning sickness and you will find plenty and you would make a joke out of someone else’s misfortune

he progress that has been made in the study of AIDS has come from human clinical investigation and in vitro (cell and tissue culture) research. Animal models continue to be used even though they do not develop the human AIDS virus. The development of life saving protease inhibitors was delayed by misleading monkey data. Referring to efforts to develop an AIDS vaccine, leading AIDS researcher Dr. Mark Feinberg stated: “What good does it do you to test something in a monkey? You find five or six years from now that it works in the monkey, and then you test it in humans and you realize that humans behave totally differently from monkeys, so you’ve wasted five years”.

Clearly, if we are going to make medical progress, a new approach is needed. Human medicine can no longer be based on veterinary medicine. It is fraudulent and dangerous to apply data from one species to another. There are endless examples of the differences between humans and non-human animals.
1.PCP is a sedative for chimps
2.Penicillin kills cats and guinea pigs but has saved many human lives.
3.Arsenic is not poisonous to rats, mice, or sheep.
4.Morphine is a sedative for humans but is a stimulant for cats, goats, and horses.
5.Digitalis while dangerously raising blood pressure in dogs continues to save countless cardiac patients by lowering heart rate.
The National Institutes of Health alone pours well over five billion dollars annually into superfluous animal experimentation. Abolishing animal research will mean these resources could be redirected into prevention and the types of research which actually have a chance of advancing human medicine and human health.

Ren just google Bendictine and morning sickness and you will find plenty and you would make a joke out of someone else’s misfortune

No Ren is making fun of our misfortune (being stuck with unhinged people like you).

Also,
Protip: Just googling shit does not necessarily/usually lead you to reliable information. On the plus side, this explains a whole lot about how you came to your understanding of the world.

My point is that animals and people do not react the same in testing so how can you produce safe products based on crap research and testing? The progress that has been made in the study of AIDS has come from human clinical investigation and in vitro (cell and tissue culture) research. Animal models continue to be used even though they do not develop the human AIDS virus. The development of life saving protease inhibitors was delayed by misleading monkey data. Referring to efforts to develop an AIDS vaccine, leading AIDS researcher Dr. Mark Feinberg stated: “What good does it do you to test something in a monkey? You find five or six years from now that it works in the monkey, and then you test it in humans and you realize that humans behave totally differently from monkeys, so you’ve wasted five years”.

Clearly, if we are going to make medical progress, a new approach is needed. Human medicine can no longer be based on veterinary medicine. It is fraudulent and dangerous to apply data from one species to another. There are endless examples of the differences between humans and non-human animals.
1.PCP is a sedative for chimps
2.Penicillin kills cats and guinea pigs but has saved many human lives.
3.Arsenic is not poisonous to rats, mice, or sheep.
4.Morphine is a sedative for humans but is a stimulant for cats, goats, and horses.
5.Digitalis while dangerously raising blood pressure in dogs continues to save countless cardiac patients by lowering heart rate.
The National Institutes of Health alone pours well over five billion dollars annually into superfluous animal experimentation. Abolishing animal research will mean these resources could be redirected into prevention and the types of research which actually have a chance of advancing human medicine and human health.

do you know Camille, do you know that she is “Unhinged” no you don’t

Good point. It is wrong to assume that someone is deranged when “”morally corrupt” or “stupid and self-dramatising” are also available as explanations.

Animal hoarders are a varied lot.

I’m more interested in community response to hoarders, which ranges from ignoring them, supporting them WRT to hoarders who use the “Rescue” front, prosecuting them and even exploiting them by dumping animals on the properties of known hoarders.

Getting authorities to realize that hoarding is a symptom of mental illness is essential, since the relapse rate of hoarding is one of the highest known.

alafair said,

the moderator is choosing what to postand what not to post of my comments so i am outta here and this probably wont be posted either

Moron. If you actually spent a little time here you would realize that almost nothing gets blocked and that dissenting opinions, no matter how stupid, end up getting posted. However, there is automatic moderation and if you post too many times in a short time period, or include too many links, your posts are likely to get held up but will likely eventually be posted. See, there is a nice, simple explanation for your woe. It is amazing how many people immediately assume they are being repressed. I wonder how many animal rights blogs have such an open commenting policy. My guess would be that their comment policy has more similarity to AoA than here.

Of course, if you have gone already you will not see this. But I have seen so many people flounce I imagine it is likely you will see it.

@TBruce They are well respected by people who have a moral responsibility to treat living creatures w/ respect.

and what endemic chronic wasting disease might you be referring to? whatever it is hunting has no effect on it.

You have only failed to answer the original question and managed to dig a deeper hole. Let’s just cut to the chase: Was it K3wl and R8tshuz for Marino to kill her cat on hygienic principle?

@64 Alafair

“Abolishing animal research will mean these resources could be redirected into prevention and the types of research which actually have a chance of advancing human medicine and human health. ”

You might be able to convince me of this argument. I’d love to see SBM get away from using animals in labs (although I understand why it’s done and am grateful for the medical discoveries) and I only have a passing understanding so I’m not convinced of one side or another.

*HOWEVER* this concept of stopping the use of animals in labs does not in any way excuse inciting or using violence as a means to get change. There’s a way to have this conversation without resorting to it – and yet you defend it? How does this make you any better than the people you think are harming animals? Humans are animals too: if you can defend the well-being of other species, you can’t possibly leave out humans from that ideal (without making yourself sound stupid that is).

blackbirdmarsh:

You respect an organization whose very name is a lie? The so-called Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has a membership that is about 95% non-physicians.

Their leader, Dr. Neil Barnard, seems to also be economical with the truth.

Regardless of PCRM’s credibility (which is subjective, but appears to be about equal with PETA, which is not a scientifically-respected group), they have an unconcealed goal of stopping all animal testing. This is an extremist position that does not make them a neutral party in this discussion. Dr. O’Leary’s experiments have not been condemned by any neutral party as far as I’m aware. Even if they have been, does that justify Camille’s support of snuff fantasies about him? I would contend anyone who promotes such a disgusting fantasy in the way she did against a real-live person, has demonstrated that “unhinged” is a gentle word for their mental stability.

“That sounds like an animal rights wingnut tactic. No has to “know” someone personally to make an obvious assumption about their character

Posted by: Science Mom ”

Then maybe this animal rights character didn’t need to know and work in the laboratory to “know” about the character of one of the students working there, and was right in their actions?

Here’s how an activist can become objectively wrong:

1) Go through the system. What chance would this woman have getting on the IRB or whatever as the outside person? Nil.

2) Prosetylize. But you all here have managed to show that you will defend your right to call her nuts because she’s “against all animal testing”, even though you don’t actually KNOW her. So natch on that one.

3) Action.

And then YOU come along, first view, see the Action step and jump straight to the conclusion that she’s a nutter because she’s taking direct action that you know should have been done a different way first. Unbeknownst to you, these different ways were tried, but were not newsworthy, therefore invisible.

Soap box
Ballot box
Bullet box

isn’t it? But you don’t go to the part to hear the soapbox, and they’re all nutters anyway. And you all vote, but you don’t watch everyone voting.

And then you wonder why the bullet box is opened.

It was the first time you noticed.

She didn’t kill anyone. She may be extreme, but there are far more extremists who love hurting animals because they can’t call the police.

@Wow – there is a huge difference between people that abuse animals (animal hoarders, people who get their kicks from abusing animals, etc) & those researchers that utilize animals in scientific processes.

In this particular case, this individual’s tactics do border on outright incitement to violence – and go far beyond the pale of protests to outright physical threats on individuals and their families.

These tactics have no place in civil society – and this applies to any flavor of protest position, whether it be anti-government (militias), anti-abortion (shoot the doctors), or anyone else that advocates violence as a means of supporting change.

Soap box
Ballot box
Bullet box

How long do I have to disagree with you before I’m allowed to threaten to kill your children? I’m just itching to track down the school they go to and at what times they are most likely to be home alone.

So you approve of violence escalation, Art? Or only for the right people?

What I got from it was that “animal rights” groups attack soft targets like random people wearing fur instead of bikers because bikers could probably kicks the asses of “animal rights” people. And no one would feel sympathy for them and no one could see them as having achieved even very skewed goals if they were to get beaten to a pulp.

Nature manages itself through size of habitat, availability of food and water, natural predators, severe weather conditions.

Humans are natural predators. Check your teeth some time if you don’t believe me. Not to mention that humans are part of nature. Humans expanding their habitat is just as natural as any other new species moving into an area-and just as destructive. The difference is that people can understand the consequences of their actions and try to limit the damage done. And, when people follow their natural instinct to act as predators, we can attempt to cause as little pain and distress to the hunted animal as possible. Unlike, say, great cats who often start eating an animal that has been disabled but is not yet dead.

“Nature managing itself” means animals starving, freezing, dying of dehydration, being eaten alive, being torn apart by rivals in the mating game, etc. Nature isn’t nice and romanticizing nature while declaring everything humans do to be evil is just silly.

“@86: She didn’t kill anyone.

Not yet, admittedly”

See how grudgingly this is “given” her?

Pathetic.

YOU haven’t killed anyone. Not yet, admittedly. But we should be afraid of nutters who haven’t killed anyone *yet*…

“Humans are natural predators. Check your teeth some time”

I did.

Molars don’t happen on cats or dogs. You know, natural predators. They happen to ruminants, though.

Or are cows natural grass hunters?

PS animals STILL starve, freeze and so on. Even when we hunt them. So blaming nature for being mean isn’t carte blanche for us to do it.

@Wow – no one has said that “you’ve” said those things. In fact, if you read the materials available and even this individual’s own website, it is plainly visible that she does feel that way about anyone involved in research involving animals – and saying otherwise is a blantant lie.

And since she does advocate violence against specific individuals and supports writings that highlight the “fictional” killing of researchers, it doesn’t take a genius to see exactly where she stands.

Before it comes up, I’d just like to say that although the goal of modelling biological systems with computers is great, in order to do the kind of modelling that would more or less exactly (subject to essentially quantum-physics level differences) model even one subsystem of the human body, we’d not only have to completely understand all the interactions down to the atomic level, but we’d also have to have the computing power to run that simulation, multiple times (to account for non-deterministic effects).

So far, that’s not anywhere close to being doable, both on the knowledge side and the technology side. And before someone jumps in here saying that it should be easy to do because the simulation really doesn’t have to be that deep, I’m going to say yes it does, and you’re a bloody idiot if you think somehow you’ll magically get better< information from using an inexact computer model (which will necessarily have big gaps in its execution due to ignorance) over an inexact animal model (which will at least factor in molecular and sub-molecular interactions).

Sheeit, I’m not even a scientist and even I can see that.

“Your arguments are pathetically specious as Marino puts her craxxy out there for all to see.”

And you’ve put your crazy out there for all to see.

You rightwing nutjob.

But you’re unable to see the irony there, aren’t you.

@Lawrence — but calling someone a sorry little git is EXACTLY the same as suggesting they be tortured to death. I’m surprised you can’t see that.

And if only she got to know them properly before making a judgement, she’d know she was wrong about them?

I refer the right honourable gentleman to post 56.

Sounds like Science Mom is a frothing lunatic, just as bad as the animal rights nutjobs she whines about.

What’s to get to know? Marino all warm and fuzzy and we’d somehow overlook her death threats and incites of torture? I loathe her kind and you’re no better as her apologist so don’t think for a second you have some moral high ground here. And rightwing? You really are a dumbass.

Wow@86 She didn’t kill anyone.
Neither did Charles Manson. Doesn’t serve as a proof of sanity or acceptability of their respective goals.

“YOU haven’t killed anyone. Not yet, admittedly. But we should be afraid of nutters who haven’t killed anyone *yet*…”

If said person threatens violence or actively incites others, then yes there is cause for concern. How obtuse can you be?

“”Humans are natural predators. Check your teeth some time”

I did.”

And yet all you notice are the molars? The mirror, you’re using it wrong.

“Or are cows natural grass hunters?”

Actually they are. There digestive tracts, furthermore, are specially adapted for their natural prey. What point did you think you were making?

“PS animals STILL starve, freeze and so on. Even when we hunt them.”

But clearly not in the same numbers.

“So blaming nature for being mean isn’t carte blanche for us to do it.”

Starvation is a far worse death than being shot. The argument is not that nature is mean so we can be. The argument is that it is more humane to die quickly. Honestly, how did you miss this?

Its possible I’m misunderstanding you, Wow, but in case I’m not, can you show me where I said animals don’t feel pain?

@Wow – amazing how you can compare what ScienceMom posted with the open call for the hunting down and harming of researchers & their families…..

@Lawrence — but calling someone a sorry little git is EXACTLY the same as suggesting they be tortured to death. I’m surprised you can’t see that.

But but but Lawrence and Shay, we don’t knoooow her waaaaah. If only we knew her, we’d surely see she isn’t a psychopathic terrorist who cowardly targets students and children.

Wow@113 — English isn’t your first language, is it?

“amazing how you can compare what ScienceMom posted with the open call for the hunting down and harming of researchers & their families”

Amazing how you can construct a strawman so quickly from nowhere…

(and learn how to use an elipsis, please)

No, I’m comparing what NonScienceMorMom said about how you don’t have to “know” people to know what they’re like with your demand that she get to “know” people in labs.

But I guess playing the martyr is always easiest for those who have dogma and belief alone to comfort themselves in their ignorance.

What a load of bollocks; you’ve been mewling for several posts now how I shouldn’t characterise Marino because I don’t know her. And since your arguments fall short of anything resembling higher order thinking, you have to try and mock my UN? With something so hilariously inept and inaccurate no less.

“can you show me where I said animals don’t feel pain?”

Yup, no probs:

“the perceived suffering of non-human animals”

Do yourself a favour and sit on your hands, your reading comprehension is embarrassing.

“I also haven’t threatened physical harm to anyone. Yet.”

Indeed.

And I find that VERY suspicious!

Ever seen 12 Angry Men?5

“Oh I see the confusion. You don’t know what perceived means.”

Yup, it’s used by that religionista too to show that animals don’t REALLY feel pain. It just looks like it.

It’s not REALLY pain, it just LOOKS like it!

Or why else did you put:

“the perceived suffering of non-human animals … the demonstrable suffering of humans”

If you meant the same thing both times?

Or maybe you just think that using words too many times wears them out?

“Wow, we know that animals feel pain.”

Then the sentence should have been:

“the demonstrable suffering of non-human animals … the demonstrable suffering of humans”

So why wasn’t it?

Shay@115 — Thought isn’t your thing, is it. That grey goop’s just for cooling the blood. YOU use your gut!

* I try not to think with my gut. If I’m serious about understanding the world, thinking with anything besides my brain, as tempting as that might be, is likely to get me into trouble. Really, it’s okay to reserve judgment until the evidence is in.
o Ch. 11 : The Dragon in My Garage, p. 180

From the mouth of PZ:

As is usual upon reading any argument by William Lane Craig, I find myself wondering if we shouldn’t, in the name of common decency, have him locked up or in some way isolated from the sane human population. He makes bad arguments, he makes dishonest arguments, and he seems opportunistically willing to sacrifice moral reasoning on the altar of his barbarian god.

…

How can anyone who has known a dog deny that they are capable of perceiving pain in fairly complex ways?

But it really is a continuum.

++++

And the words used to make PZ want this person locked up for the moral health of the world?

“Thus, amazingly, even though animals may experience pain, they are not aware of being in pain. God in His mercy has apparently spared animals the awareness of pain.”

The appearance of pain. Not actual pain.

Having read words about “perceived pain of nonhuman animals” and “demonstrable pain of humans”, upon the lips of someone working at, say, Huntingon Life Sciences, what do you think that person would be getting up to in there?

Do you think they’ll care one whit about the mere perceived pain of animals in the search for a cure for the demonstrable pain of humans?

Words misused (if they ARE being misused: I doubt it myself) create the problem YOU demand others are the cause of. Refusing YOUR role in the problem and its continuance.

@Wow – I am still confused as to how you can compare the words that Marino herself has spoken or written (as referenced in Orac’s post above) to anything that has been written by the commenters here?

You seem to have no problem with Marino’s snuff fantasies, active advocating of violence, and open harrassment of not just researchers, but their familes as well – but you have a problem with us having the opinion, that based on Marino’s own words and actions, that she is a little nuts?

Your perception of reality is quite warped…..

“You seem to have no problem with Marino’s snuff fantasies”

You seem to have a problem with other people’s thoughts.

*I* have no problem with people being wrong.

I *do* have a problem with ridiculous self-justification being used in place of actual argument and rationality.

Shay, tell your gut to stop talking and use your brain.

If it’s at all possible.

You’re as batsh*t crazy as NonScienceMorMom.

No longer worth my time trying to get any type of reasoned response from Wow…..

Yup, creationists do that one too.

Just look at AMC’s methodology for example.

zeal
   /zil/ Show Spelled[zeel] Show IPA
noun
fervor for a person, cause, or object; eager desire or endeavor; enthusiastic diligence; ardor.

So why is zealot apparently always a bad thing to be?

“Please answer this simple question”

Well, it’s the first time the question has come up. Answer: Disapprove. Why did you need to ask?

Now, answer this simple question:

Why is unthinking bigotry OK when, say, ScienceMom does it, but not when Marino does?

From my first post, #27, Mike:

There are shades of crazy. She’s only quite mad, not entirely bonkers loony.

I have no *pity* or *sympathy* for someone who doesn’t care about the law to be tromped by someone else who doesn’t care about the law.

Scaring people is not terrible, but is still bad. You can get over fear. You can’t get over dead.

++++

So, again, why did you have to ask your plain question? It had already been answered.

Or was the mere fact I wasn’t howling for blood like the rest of you enough to convince you that I MUST be for human cruelty?

So WoW is a disengenuous tone troll…..interesting.

“Do ruminants have canines?”

They have molars. Like we do.

Duh.

Oh, I’m not attempting to berate you, Wow. On the contrary, I’d love for you to keep talking.

@wow – you’ve actually “said” very little.

“you’ve actually “said” very little.

Posted by: Lawrence | February 9, 2012 12:45 PM”

A gosh darned more than you have, Larry.

That post being a prime example.

Note how you’re matching this definition:

Tone Trolls are the language puritans of the blog world. They will studiously avoid addressing the substantive issues of an argument,

“disapprove-but-use-weasel-words-to-express-tacit-approval, none-of-the-above?

Posted by: Mike Crichton | February 9, 2012 12:01 PM”

So you can’t say anything mike ‘cos all you have are weasel words to avoid dumping yourself right in the cack?

Or do you only ask the questions, like this guy:

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29631/

Or is thinking a bit beyond your reach too? I can wait a while whilst you go and do some heavy thinking. But please apply the brain before you blurt out what your guts tell you.

Oh goody, it’s the Blackheart of animal rights zealots. An idiot who attributes rightwing, fundy christian or LDS to anyone who disagrees with him/her. If you disagree with Marino’s tactics then why are you arguing? It’s either excruciating concern trolling or thinly-veiled sympathy for her objectives whilst you sit back and let the others do the dirty work for you. Call it what you will but normal, rational sane compassionate people do not threaten vivid torture of vivisectionists and their families.

I don’t discuss rationality with lunatics, mom.

I don’t discuss rationality with lunatics, mom.

Oh poor precious snowflake; there has been little rationality that you have managed to display. I bet it gets tiresome talking out of both sides of your flappy mouth and defend an indefensible person whilst claiming you’re not.

Wow @155:

Look in the mirror. Then kindly stop spamming the thread.

@Composer: yes, he/she/it is spamming. But keeping up with the non-sequiturs and faulty English is diverting. Is there a bingo for this?

I’d like to join you in mocking wow, but there’s so little content in his/her/its posts that I can’t find anything to say about them. Orac, you need a better class of trolls.

Wow, you’ve finally said you “disapprove” of Marino; now I’m puzzled as to why you’re still arguing so vehemently with us. Can’t you concede that we may have a point in seeing Marino as ‘unhinged’?
Also, you’ve still to answer why ARAs don’t go after hunters or real animal abusers (surely you followed the link that I gave?) Especially the latter, seeing as they don’t have the police or public sympathy on their side.

“On the contrary, I’d love for you to keep talking.

Posted by: Melissa G | February 9, 2012 12:42 PM”

See, Lawrence, this is trolling.

Note also that this hair brained blond doesn’t think “Troll” is a nasty thing to call someone.

“Hair brained blond”

IT’S LIKE HE’S SEEING INTO MY SOUUUUUUUUL!!! 😀

Awww, am I trolling the troll with my sarcasm? Poor baby. Now why don’t you tell us why you’re defending Marino when you yourself admit her position is one you “disapprove” of.

There’s nothing we could say that would have any effect on Wow…in its mind it’s already ‘won’ the argument.

Clueless. Angry. Arrogant. Ever so haughty. Come to think of it, Wow sounds a lot like a certain supermodel ARA we know and love. I wonder . . .

Wow also believes that GMOs are intrinsically evil. I wish I was kidding. So I’m not surprised that Wow’s being incoherent about yet another hot-button topic.

nsib

Wow also believes that GMOs are intrinsically evil.

The last time I saw him in these parts, he was defending Prince Charles.

Also, you would think in an animal rights thread, he would get the insult “hare brained” right.

“IT’S LIKE HE’S SEEING INTO MY SOUUUUUUUUL!!!”

It’s like you’re some sort of animal rights nut insisting that I have to get to know you before I can comment on your abilities and mental state…

Just ask mom.

I note that you along with everyone else are avoiding answering questions or even putting some evidence other than your personal beliefs forward.

I’ve not avoided answers. Every one of you has gish galloped yourself away at every opportunity.

But, because it’s YOU doing it, that’s not a gish gallop, merely proof that I’m wrong! Somehow…

Too bad Wow didn’t take my advice and sit on his/her hands, now we have even MOAR stupid. You clearly don’t know what a Gish Gallop is as it hasn’t been done to you. “Hair brained blond”? Can’t even get that right either, not to mention how chauvinistic it is. No wonder you’re an apologist for animal rights fanatics; the movement doesn’t exactly attract the best the the brightest.

@Wow – because individuals can “threaten” your business or “threaten” with protest or boycott…which constitutes a mere threat of economic action or the like.

Once you cross over into the open advocating of direct violence, that constitutes a “terroristic” threat. You don’t seem to understand the difference here – that crossing that line, regardless of the cause supported, is unacceptable. We would be saying the exact same thing if someone openly advocated that anti-vaccination supporters or personalities be harmed in any way – violence or advocating violence to support a cause is not an acceptable means to spur change.

So, why, in this instance, do you believe this is acceptable behavior? And why shouldn’t we discourage it?

Has anyone seen the new bot delivery guy? They promised to fast-track the reprogramming (maybe even cloning) and get it over here pronto.

The current non-Th infestation doesn’t offer even a new set of bingo cards, let alone a dictionary. Only an active bot can raise standards around here now.

“because individuals can “threaten” your business or “threaten” with protest or boycott.”

And with physical violence.

http://www.defencelaw.com/penalty-violence.html

@Wow – did you have a point? Or do you accept that Marino’s actions either border on or are part and parcel criminal activities.

“did you have a point?”

Yes.

Several, all avoided like the plague.

Because they’re emotionally abhorrent to you, since you know you’re the good guys, therefore everyone else must be wrong.

One of the (many) problems with the USA today and spreading around the world. Two sides. At least it’s not communism with only one side!!!

And anyone know what the point was to, to take merely one example:

“he was defending Prince Charles.”

?

Or is this only for “the wrong” to have?

And innocent of WHAT?

Working at an animal testing centre? Nope, they do, so they’re not innocent of that.

And, given that that is what this woman is verbally abusing these people for, she’s not threatening innocent people.

Not guilty of a crime? But then again Saddam Hussein wasn’t guilty of any crime. He was the one writing the laws, so he made them legal.

But others decided this wasn’t right and assaulted him, even though innocent of any crime, because the law wasn’t working. It tends not to for the soverign dictator in a country.

So, if you only came in to Gulf War 2 at the time of the Shock And Awe tactics, you’d be calling the entire West a bunch of psychopaths.

And for DARING to say that maybe you need to look a little more discriminatingly, I get a “zip it” “terroristic threats” “weasel word avoidance of all the above” and so on.

All emotional blackmailing to shout down thought and suppress opinion.

Not very scientific.

Therefore anyone who even *thinks* that there may be reasoning for these actions is told “Zip it”.

How are you using the word “reasoning” here, in the phrase “reasoning for these actions”?

If you’re using it literally to indicate that she must have some motivation to threaten researchers and their immediate families, publish their personal information on a website advocating violence against them, to harass undergrad students, etc., we already know the’s resoning for heractions: forcing compliance with an ideologic goal–the elimination of the use of animal models.

If on the other hand you’re using the word ‘reasoning’ as a synonymm for “justification”, I’ll have to ask you support such an extraordinary claim beyond suggesting personal threats, advocating violence and acts of harrassment must be considered nothing more than the expression of an opinion.

Working at an animal testing centre? Nope, they do, so they’re not innocent of that.

To no greater extent than a pre-school teacher is guilty of teaching at a preschool, or a librarian is gyuilty of working at a library–do you agree?

So if I threatened physical violence against preschool teachers or librarians if they continued to work in their chosen fields, if I extended that threat to their immediate families, if I published personal information about teachers and libararians to demonstrate their vulnerability to physical assault, if I began targeting and harassing undergrads seeking teaching certification and degrees in library science demanding they abandon those careers, in your opinion I wouldn’t be threatening innocent people?

Further, you’d not only think doing so was acceptable behavior but it represented a rational response to the ‘problem’ of people teaching and acrchiving books?

Really?

JR @ #173–

Oh, my. What a dreadful thing to live with! May I suggest you watch a few episodes of “Hoarders,” because I am willing to bet you will observe the same denial, avoidance behaviors, mis-wired thought processes, and even body language in your roommate as these confirmed hoarders exhibit when people try to help them. It is a mental disorder, akin to OCD, and as such it has certain characteristic behaviors. (IANAD, so take this for whatever Stupid Internet Advice is worth.)

To me, the saddest part of all is that animal hoarders really believe they love these animals, even as they kill them with neglect! If you can, please encourage her to get psychiatric help. Hoarding behaviors like this tend to get worse as folks age, and if she ever gets a place with no roommate, any animal she brings home is likely doomed to a slow and agonizing death.

@Composer99: Animal rights people forgo all rights to civility, maturity and intelligence the minute they get on their soapbox about animal rights. Many of us on this thread can detail the handling care of animals in research, but people like Wow can’t even read it, they go into a tunnel type of vision that limits their capability to understand. It is a fascinating psychological condition, possibly associated with disassociation and possibly even a compulsion. I haven’t found any research on this type of condition, but I’m seriously looking at making it my thesis.

I can buy into the view that the term “terrorist” can be thrown around a little too loosely. It does not make the death/torture threats referenced above less heinous.

Wow seems to be annoyed more at the from-a-distance diagnosis of ‘crazy’. Apparently one can only judge another person after getting to know them. And doesn’t see the logical problem in that this would have to extend to 9/11 and other such events.

According to Wow, terrorism is ok when the other people are guilty and no other peaceful option has worked. Never mind that they haven’t been found guilty by any legal measure (insert conspiracy here), if no one else is willing to take action, why, violent acts are a reasonable measure to make.

Sigh… WTF is wrong with people that they think that kind of logic is ok…

Off topic. What is the map with the red dots under the comments box?

Who the hell is Queenie?

The main subject of the PCRM Department of Agriculture petition.

@173 and @200

She’s actually worse than the average hoarder. They usually acquire animals in fairly benign ways – strays, pets than need to be rehomed, fertile pets that reproduce. They usually are functional and competent in caring for the pets at the outset until they are overwhelmed by the number of pets or a life crisis which decreases the amount of time or money they have.

Most hoarders don’t have kleptomania. Most hoarders know what proper care for their pets should be, and claim to provide it. (Even if the evidence contradicts their claims.)

Excuse my Fristing, but your roommate seems to be more of an abuser than a hoarder. Hoarding tends to be about attachment and feeling that their pets NEED them. Abuse is about control.

IANAP disclaimer (I am not a professional.)

I worked at one UK establishment where lots of work was done on animals. I used to test blood samples from pigs and dogs that had been given kidney and liver transplants to perfect surgical techniques and also the use of new immunosuppressive drugs, both of which led to successful use in humans. Colleagues in the lab next door used lots of mice and rats. There was no security, and we never had any problems with animal rights activists, though another establishment a few miles away was raided by them more than once.

A few years later I worked at a different UK establishment which did not do animal experiments and never had, as far as I know. We had to have strict security in place, and were advised to check our vehicles carefully whenever we left work, because of threats from animal rights activists. I never understood that. Lousy intelligence (in both senses of the word) was to blame I suspect.

“Molars don’t happen on cats or dogs. You know, natural predators. They happen to ruminants, though.” What? Having cleaned pet dog teeth for 20 years, I can tell you that dogs have molars and humans have canines [small but real–ever watch the chimpanzee hunting other monkeys? They have longer canines and the whole affair is brutal]. There are so many other animal-related inaccuracies in the AR posts here it is sad; because those who truly love want to know everything possible about their love-objects.

Wowser – the Prince Charles comment refers to you showing up here and objecting to this enemy of science and reason being referred to as a woo.

Wowser’s argument appears to be that if scientists weren’t abusing animals, AR terrorism wouldn’t exist. Since AR terrorists exist scientists must be doing terrible to animals in labs. The argument doesn’t condone the terrorism, but it does assume the targeted group must be guilty of something.

The temptation to Godwin this argument is too great to resist. This is like arguing that since extreme antisemitism exists the Jews must be really doing terrible things. The argument ignores the possibility that matzos are not made from the blood of Christian children and ignores the possibility that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a forgery.

Denice,

Any person who threatens or encourages violence- especially bombings- wages psychological terror: people will live in fear, the horror may actually take lives or cripple people and the living survivors carry their suffering to their own graves.

I agree, I don’t think most people realize how many people are profoundly affected by such violence and even just threats of violence.

In case anyone thinks these were empty threats, the warnings I was given were prompted by two bombs attached to the cars of a vet and a professor of physiology (the latter bomb badly injured a 13 month old infant). I Googled “animal rights bombs” and was surprised at just how many attacks there have been in the UK, where I worked, and elsewhere.

Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives’ mouths.

I’ve often thought, when reading this quote, that given the deplorable track record of pre-modern dentistry, if he *had* looked in their mouths, it’s entirely possible that he would have found that they *did* have fewer teeth than he did.

WoW.
He’s gone.

Nope, you haven’t listened to a single word, you’ve been elbows-deep in your own denial.

Nope, you haven’t listened to a single word, you’ve been elbows-deep in your own denial.

That’s not denial, it’s simply disagreement with you and your defence of the indefensible.

So, anyone who disagrees with Wow is, in Wow’s opinion, in denial.

Wow, let’s look first at

Demanding that they use diplomacy first when you have absolutely no idea whether it was or not.

By “use diplomacy first” you’re tacitly arguing that there is a point when they’d be justified moving beyond diplomacy and they should not be condemned or held accountable if they move on to embrace ‘non-diplomatic’ means instead–in Camille’s case the harassing of undergrads, threatening violence against researchers and their immediate families, posting researchers personal information online, if not to abet physical assault then at the very least to demonstrate they and their family are vulnerable to potential violence if they don’t abandon their research models.

Is that your position? Do you beleive that failing to achieve the goal of eliminating the use of animal models by diplomatic means justifies escalating to harassment, threats and/or real acts of violence?

It isn’t that Camille Marino should have ‘used diplomacy first’: it’s that she should only use such means, and never have moved beyond them to the tactics she currently embraces.

That there is anything possibly wrong with your ideological stance is identical in its unsupported nature to that of creationists and that very many of your arguments are exactly those taken by the religious.

This is a massive strawman. We are discussing the abhorrent behaviour of an animal-rights activist terrorist and her subsequent arrest, not every nuance of animal models in scientific/medical testing.

That there is anything possibly wrong with animal testing and that maybe you’re just looking at the “Shock and Awe” stage and pretending that that’s all there is to it. Demanding that they use diplomacy first when you have absolutely no idea whether it was or not.

You’re off the rails; again, blogpost not about animal testing per se but Camille Marino’s vile and despicable methods along with her arrest for those methods. Again with the “you don’t know her” argument; even if she did employ diplomacy first, it never will justify her current methods or are you still pretending you’re not defending her?

In short, you’re as dogmatic and incapable of cogent argument as any creotard.

But rather than try and improve your argument to prove me wrong on that, you prefer to double-down on teh stoopid.

Finally did a bit of introspection did you? Regardless of one’s stance on animal testing, Marino is wrong wrong wrong. You don’t accomplish anything remotely positive this way.

MESSAGE BEGINS————-

Minion Mom,

Intellectual Divot. Genius, pure genius. In negotiating with the Kthraaxx, a pithy slur, well delivered will engender respect. I shall use it on Ambassador Psh*thbt* at our next poker night gathering. Genius.

Carry on with your sad little chew toy.

Lord Draconis Zeneca VHi7L

Foreward Mavoon of the Great Fleet, Pharmaca Magna of Terra, President, LETM

Glaxxon Cutter “Victorious Claw of Righteousness”
(coordinates undisclosed)

0010011111010001010101011101010

———————–MESSAGE ENDS

“You never did respond to the point about the molars.”

You never did respond to the point about your adherence to xtian fundie methods of “argument”. Are you conceding the point?

Your dog doesn’t have chisel teeth. We do.

Wow @ 96 said:

Molars don’t happen on cats or dogs. You know, natural predators. They happen to ruminants, though.

Molars aren’t canines. I don’t think you’re in a position to critique anyone’s argument when you come out with gems like this. And instead of admitting your mistake, try stupid distraction.

Wow, can I get a response to the question I asked a couple of days ago, after you accused opponents of “Demanding that [animal rights activists] use diplomacy first when you have absolutely no idea whether it was or not.”

By my reading this passage presumes that if activists at some point tried using diplomacy (i.e., rational argument) but failed to acheive their goal of eradicating the use of animal models, they are then justified in moving beyond diplomacy, cannot be condemned and should not be held accountable for mooving on to non-diplomatic means including the organized harassment of undergrad students, threatening violence against researchers and their immediate families, posting said researchers personal information online to at the very least to demonstrate they and their family’s vulnerability to potential violence if not also to abet actual physical assault should the researchers continue to employ animal models, etc.

Is this really your position? A simple yes or no answer would be appreciated.

And if your answer is “No”, if you agree that threats of violence have no place in the debate re: animal rights, how can you possibly continue to defend Camille Marino?

On the subject of chisel teeth, I presume we’re talking about incisors. Not only do pigs have them, but so do dogs. In fact, they’re right up front, in the same place you’ll find them on humans. They serve the same purpose as they do on humans, horses, and anything else with incisors — nipping off food and other things. (Dogs, like humans, will use their teeth not just for eating but also as tools. They have more excuse than humans do, of course.) Dog molars serve the same function that human molars do — crushing and grinding. A wild dog with a largely carnivorous diet finds them very useful for crushing bone — molars are definitely not peculiar to vegetarian species. This may relate to why molars are not found in a puppy’s mouth; they emerge with the second set of teeth. Wild puppies eat pre-chewed (and partially pre-digested) food regurgitated by adult pack members; they do not yet require molars, and may lack the jaw strength required to make effective use of them anyway.

One of the bigger differences is the amount of space between teeth. Human mouths are pretty crowded compared to dog mouths. (Well, long-faced dogs, anyway. Snub-nosed breeds may have crowding issues.) This is why dogs are less likely to get cavities.

Now, although molars are useful to carnivorous species, not all carnivores possess them. Cats do not. They have only the carnassials (a type of blade-like premolar also found in dogs). More important, though, is probably the jaw. Dogs and cats are not well built for grinding on their back teeth. Humans can, because our jaws have a significant range of side-to-side motion rather than being locked into an up-and-down path. This is crucial for grinding; go watch a cow chewing her cud for comparison. Length of the gut is also important. Dogs have longer guts than cats, and can process some plant matter. Humans have longer guts still, making us well suited to a range of foods. But our guts are not anywhere near as long as those of obligate herbivores. Gorillas, the only obligate herbivores among the great apes, are famous for their beer-gut appearance; this is an adaptation to an herbivorous lifestyle. Humans can live an herbivorous lifestyle, but only with technological assistance. I’m not talking about B12 supplements here, though those are nevertheless crucial. I’m talking about much more basic stuff — cooking tough plant matter to soften it, chopping it finely to break up fibers, grinding flour out of grain or various other plant materials, pickling, freeze-drying (practiced since ancient times in the Andes), soaking in water or various chemicals, fermentation, etc. Our brains opened up huge new culinary horizons for us. 😉

WHAT KIND OF ANIMAL IS THIS?

Dr. Martin Haskell giving a presentation at the 16th Annual Meeting of the National Abortion Federation Conference in 1992 in San Diego. It was a gathering of abortionists — men and women who make their living by killing babies. Haskell was describing to his audience how to do a partial-birth abortion. Listen to his words about how this procedure takes place:
“The surgeon then introduces large grasping forceps … through the vaginal and cervical canal … He moves the tip of the instrument carefully towards the fetal lower extremities — and pulls the extremity into the vagina …The surgeon then uses his fingers to deliver the opposite lower extremity, then the torso, the shoulders, and the upper extremities. The skull lodges in the internal os. The fetus is oriented … spine up … The surgeon then takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. … the surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull–spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening. The surgeon–surgeon then introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents.”
Haskell, having described these brutal details, shows his audience a video of himself doing one of these procedures. And at the end of the video, after the sound of the suction machine taking the brains out of the baby’s head, the audience applauds.
BABY BODY PARTS
Fetal tissue wholesalers are companies which place employees in abortion clinics to harvest tissue, limbs, organs, etc. from aborted babies. This material is then shipped to researchers working for universities, pharmaceutical companies and government agencies. Although it is against federal law to sell human tissue or body parts, these organizations have devised a system to circumvent this restriction. Technically, all fetal material they harvest is “donated” to them by the clinics. However, they do pay a “site fee” to the clinics for the right to access the tissue. The tissue is then “donated” to the researchers who in turn pay the wholesalers for the cost of retrieval. Profit is realized by the wholesalers’ ability to set their own retrieval fees.

It was a gathering of abortionists — men and women who make their living by killing babies.

That’s quite an extraordinary claim, Larry. if you want anyone to consider it seriously I’m afraid you’ll have to provide credible support.

So tell us: by what rational argument does terminating a pregnancy at all stages of development following fertilization represent the killing of an actual human person, rather than the destruction of a human zygote, embryo or fetus?

Re: Fetal tissue wholesalers, I presume that you’re arguing regulations be amended to limit the wholesaler’s ability to determine the fee they’ll charge for retrieving and distributing fetal tissues. Is price gouging really a big problem here? I’d think market forces would be sufficient to keep costs reasonable–if one harvesting agency charges too much, just contract with another in its stead.

@239 Wow

You do realise that Wiki Answers is worse than Wikipedia don’t you? Anyone can write an answer for Wiki Answers, and there’s no editorial oversight to ensure answers are based in fact.

Uh, wow…you did read the wikipedia article you linked to, right?

And you do realize that rather than support a claim that dogs do not have ‘chisel teeth’ and that humans do, it states that both dogs and humans have the same four types of teeth (canines, incisors, premolars and molars)–right?

Orac, you might want to take a look at Dr. Roy Greek’s posting about this article.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/animal-rights/bad-arguments-both-sides

I think it is nothing more than a poor attempt to defend Marino.

But thanks for showing yet another M.O. of the religious fundies being applied here by “the science guys”…

Can I say “Fakers!”?

When most people make such a monumental jack-ass out of themselves, they either slink away or they say, “I made an error, whoops or sorry”. Then there are those like you who just keep digging deeper. You claimed dogs and cats had no molars, they do so you instead shift to canines. And as someone mentioned, mammalian dentition is really moot; we are discussing Marino’s arrest and tactics.

What it says in Wikipedia doesn’t really matter, the question of “Is man a meat-eater or a vegetarian by nature?” was answered over 20 years ago by my Unca Cecil, a man who is never wrong.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/674/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature

The money quote:

We’re equipped with an all-purpose set of ivories equally suited to liver and onions.

Of course, this has no bearing on the question of wether Camille Marino deserves jail time and fines for her actions – she does.

I can’t see anyone in this thread defining themselves as ‘brights’, so Wow seems to be arguing with his or her own imagined adversaries rather than with actual people. Perhaps it is wisest at this point to tiptoe discreetly away to let Wow and the voices continue the argument in peace.

Wow @ 260

Why are you still addressing dentition and diet, rather than answer the question you’ve been asked several times now regarding whether or no you believe Camille Marino’s actions (harassment of undergrads, threats of violence against researchers and their families, posting of their personal information, etc.) are justified if previous ‘diplomatic’ (i.e., rational) attempts have failed to achieve her goals?

(As for the whole ‘lamers’ name-calling thing, hope that works for you on some emotional level. It does absolutely nothing however to support your argument nor undermine an opponent’s.)

@251 Wow

My point was that one can login to that site, make your own changes, post a link, and say “here’s proof”. There’s no way of knowing who edited what, why and when. Wikipedia at least has editorial oversight and a historical record visible for transparency. Even Conservapedia has a historical record and visible editorial oversight. So no, what I’m doing is no different than suggesting you link to a relevant respected peer-reviewed journal, not some site where accuracy is not only not monitored but not cared about. As with many of these ‘answer’ websites, the answers given are often incredibly incorrect and provided without references to actual evidence. Posting that link and announcing it’s relevant is no different than posting a link to Whale.to and hoping no one notices that the information is likely incorrect.

I will reiterate JGC’s comment @252: did you read and understand the Wikipedia article you linked to? And his comment @253, where you’re asked to answer a more pertinent question…

PS. For a better example of ad homs, check comment #259.

“I can’t see anyone in this thread defining themselves as ‘brights'”

So you’re admitting you’re all dim?

Oooh, well done, Mr. Clever Clogs!

Now that you have that out of the way, maybe you could be arsed to answer those questions, hmm?

I guess the problem is I started with not complete obeisance to that symbol of American Exceptionalism, Free Speech, huh.

I’m not following, wow–how is any consideration ‘obeisance’ to freedom of expression germane to the discussion? Surely you’re not suggesting that other posters have exceeded their right by responding to your posts in a manner you dislike, or that Marino’s right to free speech precludes her being held accountable for what she chooses to say or do.

That does gel quite nicely with your attempts at self-justification.

What behavior or expression is it you feel requires justification? Be specific.

However, I do not think these people actually care about animals. I think they care about being able to put their anger about life into a seemingly “righteous” cause. It gives them a similar effect to religious worship, most likely. Damn the damned human psyche.

That’s certainly the impression I get about a lot of them.

I realize I’m showing my cynical side, but I also imagine there are also a subgroup trolling in the physical world, using the cause as an excuse to carry out extreme antisocial behavior “for the lulz.” They pick easy targets because bullying isn’t fun when the target can fight back.

I suspect every protest movement has to work to control or expel both of those sorts. I don’t know the historical reasons behind it, but when it comes to animal welfare, the fanatics and trolls are hogging the spotlight. For those who are sincerely concerned about animals it’s going to be one hell of an uphill battle if they want to change public perception.

@Wow – who continues to refuse to answer the direct questions posed to him. He truly is arguing with himself.

It begins…

“COLUMBUS, Ohio — An Ohio woman who compared animal-welfare work to the liberation of World War II concentration camps has been charged with soliciting a hit man to fatally shoot or slit the throat of a random fur-wearer, federal authorities said.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46477980/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/feds-ohio-animal-rights-activist-offered-random-fur-wearer-be-killed/

At least, unlike Ingrid Newkirk et al she was quite honest about what she wanted.

None of this, here is the persons address and if something bad should happen to them, I’m not responsible because I didn’t actually ask for it to happen.