My response to Jentsch:

No. The fact that Jerry Vlasak is a physician is the ONLY thing that is relevant. Because he made some innocuous statements that hurt your feelings, you abandon reasoned discourse. Your comment about the possibility of him being connected to your attacks are not only slanderous, but, decidedly ironic. Any violence that’s been visited on you is a direct result of the violence you routinely visit on your victims. We both know that you fear exposure. It’s a natural human reaction to protect the innocent when we see abuse. You and only you have whatever redress you received.

The rest of your comments about Vlasak are nonsense. He is a surgeon — he actively helps people for a living. You are a vivisector — you actively cause harm to animals.

But I am not a scientist. If there is any validity to your research, you should put your personal prejudices aside and promote understanding through dialogue…. Read more

As far as Dr. Greek, the only reason you cite to not engage him is that you object to his associations. Guilt by association is the same McCarthyism that fostered oppression and effectively stifled communication. By taking civil open discussion off the table, you create an atmosphere that necessitates other tacticsl.

The issue of violence is relative. And, should you ever choose to debate the ethics of subjecting the innocent to violent experiments, I have someone in mind who I’m certain would debate that.

If you continue to pick and choose who you will engage based on your personal prejudices, you will remain the greatest impediment to progress.

Congratulations on helping society coin the term ‘Eco-terrorists’. Congratulations, you have intimidated a couple of researchers…. sorry ‘vivisectors’ into stopping animal research. While many more take their places.

Pat yourselves on the back as now groups are forming to fight animal rights extremism. Thanks to you guys, the public now views animal research more favorably then before (at least in England).

It’s funny how you assume Jentsch and Ringach ‘fear exposure’. What is there to fear, they are already exposed. Maybe they fear violence from you guys? Because who would want to debate with people who think ‘negation is over’?

“The fact that Jerry Vlasak is a physician is not relevant. What is relevant is that he has personally boasted about, condoned and apologized for attacks against me and my colleagues. He has used words like “assassination” in reference to us. I would not be surprised if he was, himself, directly linked to some of the criminal activities directed … Read Moreagainst us. Apparently, the Hippocratic Oath he took when he received his degree has been forgotten.

Dr. Greek has openly condemned violent actions to achieve the ends of the animal rights movement. I appreciate that. But he also colludes with them – openly associating with Jerry Vlasak and sharing an address with another individual who calls for harm against scientists (Rick Bogle).

You can not ask for an open and honest debate when you repeatedly refer to violence as a negotiating tool. Either words alone are the tools for this dialogue, or it can not happen.” ~J David Jentsch, Pro-test Facebook group.

You’ve read his replies.

I have no doubt many vegans have issues with NIO and the MDA movement. However, I doubt any real and committed vegan would say the unnecessary suffering and death of 10-12 billion living, breathing, feeling, sentient creatures every year for human consumption in the US alone is just a matter of, you know, someone’s totally valid lifestyle choice.

Epic fail, Ester.

Btw, I am one who would fit into the pacifist AR camp and I say Camille can post whatever the hell she wants here. I have neither the need nor desire to tell her she’s “hurting the movement”. You know why? Because, I, unlike this ersatz “voice of the vegan conscience” Ester, sure the hell am NOT tolerant of animal suffering. Yes, as it stands there are no laws to prevent anyone from throwing a bloody slab of cow flesh on their grill tonight, but just because that choice exists doesn’t make all choices are equally moral and ethical.

Ester, the problem with “personal choice” rhetoric is that consuming animals, using them for our pleasure or entertainment, or as other means to human ends isn’t actually a personal choice. That choice inflicts suffering and death upon unwilling beings, with a clear capacity for suffering, and a clear capacity for their own wants and preferences, who haven’t consented to what we’ve chosen to do to them. Would it be an acceptable “personal choice” if we did this to nonconsenting humans? Of course not.

It’s all fine and good that you’ve been a vegan for some length of time; it’s even fine that you (apparently) have no particular desire to change the status quo, and are content to view the unnecessary suffering of others as some kind of “personal choice” on the part of others.

But that doesn’t mean that it legitimately *is* a personal choice, or that others of us shouldn’t speak out about it in whatever ways we find effective. I understand that just because you’re vegan doesn’t necessarily mean you have any particular consciousness of animal rights. But that’s not especially important. We do.

The comparison to Ramirez has to do with remorseless killing, which is at the very heart of our continued justifications for animal research. We presume that so long as humans derive benefit from such research that there is no ethical problem with using animals in whatever ways we may choose to; we attempt to justify this by claiming that the animals used are being treated according to various welfare standards (which standards we devise to justify use in the first place).