by Camille Marino
In his own words, J. David Jenstch explains how he employs McCarthyist tactics, character assassination, and hides behind irrelevant diversions to escape defending his sadistic and fraudulent research before a mainstream audience. Of course, as part of the intense propaganda campaign being waged by UCLA Pro-Test/Speaking of Research, David says that he is willing to debate “mainstream individuals”; it’s imperative that everyone understand that this phrase needs to be interpreted as “sympathetic”. Otherwise, we have to assume that David Jentsch believes physicians (Dr. Jerry Vlasak & Dr. Ray Greek) are not mainstream. In the interest of accuracy and full-disclosure, the entire exchange between the Pro-Test community and myself appears unedited in text format: UCLA Pro-Test: Diversions, Ad Hominems & McCarthtyism. The bolded text below illustrates a consistent and proficient skill at diverting attention away from the issues and impeding dialogue.
I posed a single question for UCLA Pro-Test:
“If you want to quiet the activists, why does your community refuse to engage in civil productive debate?”
Camille Marino Thank you for responding to an “extremist”. I appreciate it.
There were no “thugs, criminals, apologists or their lackeys” in this equation. You refused to debate a respected trauma surgeon, Dr. Jerry Vlasak, with whom you disagree on animal rights. Dr. Ray Greek, to the best of my knowledge is a retired physician not even active in AR.
You refuse to engage in productive dialogue that challenges the scientific merit of your research. It doesn’t get more mainstream and neutral than CNN — and you refused. Your resistance frustrates reasoned discourse; you do not advance it.
Rather than enthusiastically opening up a public dialogue to promote understanding and encourage ideas, you frustrate communication by focusing on personalities.
You can use emotionally-charged phrases like “violent”, “hate”, “personal attacks” to divert attention only. This is not the behavior of a scientist promoting reason.
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
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.
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 tactics.
The issue of violence is relative.
If you continue to pick and choose who you will engage based on your personal prejudices, you will remain the greatest impediment to progress.
You are purportedly a man of science and, therefore, your concern should be truth and progress. But, no… it’s easier to divert attention and continue unchallenged….
If an animal can be protected — human or nonhuman — through violence, it is not only justifiable, it is a moral obligation. If the subject were a human baby, you would probably agree.
While we use words that have harmed no one, you are the man that imprisons and mutilates animals, inspires hatred, and demands a response. You have earned any violence that’s been visited on you all by yourself.
If you find this concept hateful, how do you define imprisonment, mutilation, torture & murder? I define it as obscene and violent.
Let’s take the clearest example: the American Academy of Neurology (http://www.aan.com/go/science/animals). This group, made up exclusively of doctors treating patients with Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s, head trauma, brain cancer and the like, overwhelmingly supports animal research.
So, let’s put this into the balance…. 21,000 neurologists who are actually helping people and making the world a better place or one quack who advocates murder. I trust the average, rationale, objective member of the public to come to a conclusion on this one.
We went over this yesterday. Are you perhaps indulging in some of those drugs you addict your victims to and maybe your memory is a bit impaired?
1- Your only rationale for refusing to debate Dr. Vlasak is that you have diverging philosopies.
2- Hippocratic Oath — his words have harmed NO ONE; he has actively saved people in his practice.
3- Ethics — this is an extremely delicate area for you to advance an attack on anyone, let alone Dr. Vlasak. YOU intentionally injure and murder innocent beings.
4- Dr. Greek — you raised absolutely NO defense. You couldn’t even find an avenue to make a feeble attack on his character, so you simply dismissed him because of his “associations”.
You’ve done absolutely nothing in this conversation except confirm that you will cling to anything remotely convenient to excuse yourself from responsibility.
You have, however, established that you are quite comfortable employing irrational & oppressive McCartyist “logic” and personal attacks — concepts antithetical to reason or science.
If you have a Facebook account, join the extended Negotiation Is Over network.”.
To submit work to NIO for consideration and publication, please send an email to camille@negotationisover with the subject “submission”.
To receive NIO updates, please send an email to camille@negotiationisover with the subject “subscriptions”
Nice post – it is clear that Jentsch has constructed a foolproof system. People either agree with him and therefore would not be appropriate debate opponents…or they disagree with him and in virtue of their disagreement they are deemed to be fringe elements not worthy of consideration.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Who-s-Afraid-of-Jerry-Vlas-by-Steve-Best-090503-913.html
Jerry Vlasak openly defends the use of violence to further the goals of the animal rights movement. Regardless of whether or not the AR movement’s central tenets are correct or incorrect, this clearly, *by definition*, makes Dr. Vlasak a criminal apologist, and characterizing him as such is accurate.
Dr. Jentsch is well within his rights to refuse to dialogue with someone who publicly advocates his murder, by any reasonable criteria. Characterizing Dr. Vlasak as simply “disagreeing” with Dr. Jentsch is disingenuous in the extreme.
Oh, poor photoshop job, by the way.
J. David Jentsch is a sadist and a cowardly aberration.
You disapprove of Dr. Vlasak?
Well, let’s hear it clown boy… Why will the benevolent “researcher” not debate Dr. Greek?
HE CANNOT DEFEND THE SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY OF MUTILATING ANIMALS.
One-sided propaganda campaigns are far more effective.
Dr. Vlasak is a well-respected surgeon and activist. If your community finds his views so problematic, you would gladly engage him. But the only thing that would be exposed are the atrocities and greed that sustain vivisectors.
As usual, the only “terrorism” being considered here are claims of violence or violence apologia against humans.
Would I have made Vlasak’s claim? No.
But that pales – absolutely pales – in comparison to the scope of nonhuman suffering we blithely inflict upon billions of nonhumans every single year.
I know the anti-AR trolls would prefer to keep bringing up irrelevant distractions, but Vlasak hasn’t (to the best of my knowledge) actually *done* anything to anyone. The rhetoric he used isn’t wise; it gives the anti-AR twits ammunition, and allows them to fling these sorts of distractions, but we need to keep things in proper perspective.
Human offense isn’t important. Nonhuman suffering is *actual*. Offended humans are a trivial concern, here.
Hey Foo Bar,
What part of the photo of Jentsch do you think has been Photoshopped?
The caption is the only thing I see. If you watch his interviews or look at his photos in the press you’ll see that he really does have those whacked eye brows, if that’s what you were referring to.
This is the face of vivisection. What a hoot that this is the guy at the forefront of defending cruelty.
Do you actually know what he does?