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?

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.

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.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by RubintheRabbit: J. David Jenstch: Avoids Scientific Challenges BY ANY MEANS …: You refused to debate a respected trauma surge.. http://bit.ly/cZGUS…

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.