Simulposted with Thomas Paine’s Corner.
“They attacked all of neuroscience when they attacked me” -David Jentsch (October 19, 2009 in Chicago)
When David Jenstch attacks helpless animals, he demands that all of us defend his victims. -TPC/NIO (October 20, 2009)
.
by Camille Marino
I had originally posted the above video thinking it was a presentation from Monday, as this science blog suggests. But Tom Holder corrected me in the comments section. This video has actually been promoted by the Speaking of Research website for over a year. We must infer, therefore, that this represents the optimal arguments they have available. Thank you for clearing that up, Tom.
Caught on Tape in the Above Video, Tom Holder’s Assine Arguments
1) He implies that since dogs and cats comprise less than 1% of lab animals, the other 99% do not matter. Sorry, Tom, the only inconsequential forms of life are vivisectors and their advocates.
2) He defends the crimes of “researchers” by explaining that factory farming has a higher body count. Nice try, Tom. You will not divert our attention by pointing to other abusers. We’re interested in you.
3) When it comes to pain, Holder asserts, with a glaring lack of empathy, that 37% of animals imprisoned in labs may feel pain, but it is of little consequence to the terrorist network’s spokesperson . He continues by trivializing the “ONLY” 7% that are intentionally subjected to pain. I would suggest that if the entire Pro-Test/Speaking of Research network were subdued, mercilessly mutilated, and murdered, it would account for a fraction of 1% of the population. There’s a statistic for your next presentation.
4) Tom Holder makes the astounding claim that managing pain makes a victim’s life “MORE ENJOYABLE”. Yet, Tom still refuses to volunteer for the pleasurable experience.
5) He explains that since computer technology cannot tell us how a drug will react in a human, we need to torture animals. Tom, you are a deceitful little man. Results extrapolated from nonhuman species injure, maim and kill people. Clinical trials with human subjects currently produce the most reliable data.
6) He actually whines that torturing animals is expensive. It might be far more expensive, Tom, when people begin to understand that you are a vile human promoting atrocities against the innocent & disenfranchised.
7) Holder would like us to conclude, therefore, that based on these fallacious and inane statements, mutilating animals is “critical” to medical science and that the victims are “happy in their lives.” Well, Tom, it is abundantly clear to everyone why your community runs from open dialogue.
Vivisectors Jentsch & Ringach REFUSED to Debate Dr. Jerry Vlasak & Dr. Ray Greek
Given the conventional diversions and drivel that the Speaking of Research spokesperson, Tom Holder, regurgitates, it is obvious that this community is unable to defend their barbarism. THE VIVISECTORS CONSISTENTLY REFUSE TO DEBATE BECAUSE THEY FEAR BEING EXPOSED IN PUBLIC (even in the mainstream forum offered by CNN, they ran). Rather than participate in open dialogue, these madmen chose to take out a full-page ad in the Sunday edition of the L.A. Times, portraying themselves as harrassed! I wonder if the target illustrated in this pathetic piece of propaganda is supposed to symbolize the vivisectors’ victimization… or maybe it’s just indicative of the inevitable…
.
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”
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Considering that video has been on the SR website for well over a year you might have a few “facts” muddled. It is not from SfN.
Tom,
This blog http://scienceblogs.com/neurotopia/2009/10/speaking_of_research_at_sfn.php suggests that that was your presentation from Monday. Thank you for correcting me. I prefer to present logical arguments supported by facts.
If you have a tape of your SfN presentation, feel free to share it with my readers. In fact, Tom, you are something of “research” subject for NIO — an utterly foreign form of life.
Are we to understand that this rambling diatribe of intellectually fraudulent and logically flawed drivel is what Speaking of Research showcases?
Thank you for this Camille, it is most interesting indeed…
What I find almost laughable here is that Speaking of Research/Pro-Test are sticking to arguments which have been around for literally hundreds of years!
I was speaking to a scientist only the other week who explained why it is that vivisection is continued by these sadistic quacks. He explained to me that it’s not even about money at the end of they day (even though that does play a major part, of course) but that it’s all about publishing papers. If a scientist doesn’t get his work published in recognised journals, he doesn’t have a career. A scientist’s entire reputataion rests on what is printed in his/her name. It doesn’t matter if it’s entire drivel, it keeps their funding coming in!
The only reason these pathetic little vivisectors are signing their petitions and “taking a stance against the activists” is because they know their entire careers ar going down the pan!
When vivisection is abolished, vivisectors will have no where to go and no career to turn to as they have no real medical or clinical experience. The future of science lies purely in clinical study of mankind. By that, I mean reverting back to the very basic prinicples of observation and by utlising the immense and amazing forms of technology we already possess as well as those whick will be created in the future.
Vivisection is obsolete, it always has been. Vivisection has done nothing more than to put science back by hundreds of years and take millions of human and non-human lives.
It is time to stand for real science, to stand against quackery and myths and to make it quite clear – you may sign your petitions in favour of fraud, murder, and halting the progress of real science but the truth is quite clear – vivisection is on its very last legs as Tom Holder has not so eloquently demonstrated!
test on prisioners..terrorist!!!
NOT animals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Holly,
I was going to put a disclaimer on the blog that said “I am not editorializing. THESE REALLY ARE HIS ARGUMENTS!”
But, if that wasn’t astounding enough, Holder actually corrected me — this is not a one-time diatribe… HIDING BEHIND THESE INTELLECTUALLY FRAUDULENT STATMENTS IS THEIR STANDARD LONG-TERM POSITION!
Honestly, we all know the one thing they cannot afford is exposure. But I thought it was mainly to keep their sadistic atrocities out of the mainstream consciousness. But it’s obvious
THEY CANNOT DEBATE PHYSICIANS. THEY ARE VILE LITTLE PEOPLE WHO CANNOT DEFEND THEMSELVES MORALLY OR SCIENTIFICALLY.
JENTSCH AND RINGACH RUFUSED TO PARTICIPATE IN OPEN, PUBLIC, PRODUCTIVE, CIVIL, SCIENTIFIC DEBATE WITH DRS. JERRY VLASAK AND RAY GREEK — AGAIN!! NOT EVEN ON CNN!!!! AND AFTER SEEING TOM’S VIDEO, IT’S OBVIOUS — THEY’RE AFRAID!
P..S. — The offer is still open…I would really love to publish you the next time you engage them.
I still think Pro-Test and the like aren’t even AIMED at the scientific community. They’re marketing efforts to massage the image of the industry in the minds of the general public. Three or four decades of AR activism has shined a light (and keeps ON shining lights) on horrific instances of abuse, which, while not *universal*, is nevertheless commonplace.
So the vivisection industry has an image problem.
That’s what Pro-Test and Speaking of Research are about.
Hey peek,
I wouldn’t say test on prisoners; the animals we use/enslave are every bit as much prisoners as any of the incarcerated. I understand you may think that prisoners may have abrogated ALL right to moral consideration, but this isn’t terribly different from saying animals exist for our use, because we say we get to use animals.
What he doesn’t say is that said information could have been obtained in more accurate, more economical, humane means. Laboratory animal testing is a business like any other (granted not all are so unethical) and it is all about money…not the betterment of man kind.
Hi Tom.
Out of interest, have you read any of Dr Ray Greek’s books (most importantly, Specious Science)?
If so, do you have any responses to the very convincing criticisms he makes of all the arguments, statements of ‘fact’ and epistemological assumptions you employ in the video posted above?
I’d be interested in hearing your views on this (if you’re reading this). I can summarise Dr Greek’s position if you’re unfamiliar with his arguments against animal model research.
On a related note, why do you personally think Dr Jentsch and co. refuse to debate Dr’s Greek or Vlasak?
Hi Camille,
I would like to point out, that at this time, the FDA requires that all drugs for human use be tested in animals before they are used in clinical trials. So it’s really a two pronged approach. Second, it’s not we that need to volunteer to undergo the experiments but your side. After all it is we that advocate the use of research animals so that humans don’t need to be used until clinical trials. So the question really is will you sacrifice yourself for the next cancer treatment experiment to save the life of a laboratory mouse? Remember it’s a one for one deal so we’d need about 100 of your friends to replace the 100 mice. It’s all in the statistics I’m afraid.
At any rate, I would think that Dr. Jentsch and co. refuse to debate Dr’s Greek and Vlasak because neither are really interested in debate. Debate requires open dialog and as this web site claims, you’re not interested in negotiation or debate. You can’t have a debate with someone who’s only position is you’re evil and deserve to die.
Anyway, hope you all have a pleasant day.
Actually, Jack, Jentsch will not debate science because he is ill-equipped to do so and the fact that he disagrees with someones philosophy is simply a diversion.
I would like to point out, that at this time, the FDA requires that all drugs for human use be tested in animals before they are used in clinical trials.
Jack, that really isn’t the point. The FDA could require testing on the prison population, for that matter; it wouldn’t address the underlying ethical objection in the first place.
Animals are NOT ours to use. That we *choose* to use them does not make it acceptable.
After all it is we that advocate the use of research animals so that humans don’t need to be used until clinical trials.
Because we unethically choose to prioritize human benefit over a given animal’s desire to live and not to suffer. That those animals in the wild would be subject to predation is neither here nor there. We aren’t responsible for the behavior of others. We are responsible for OUR choices.
No one is saying testing will end today or tomorrow. What we’re saying is that testing is not ethically justifiable just because humans derive some benefits from it. We have benefitted from experimentation on unwilling humans, in the past (and likely will again in the future). That doesn’t mean that experimenting on unwilling HUMANS is ethically acceptable.
It is only our own species bias that chooses to privilege human desire above all other considerations that causes us to attempt to ignore the obvious: we can choose. We can devise better alternatives.
babble:
So if we don’t test using animal models how should we find treatments for our pets…I mean companion animals (what load of crap that is)? Not all testing is for human use. And since you guys are so fond of saying there are alternative, name them. What are they?
Jack, do you think you’ve found the great unsolvable. The Hippocratic oath has the answer “First do no harm”. Alternatives? Computer models, Tissue cultures and that is just off the top of my head as a layman.
Both of those are excellent examples of alternatives but there are limitations. As a layman you may not understand where the tissues and cell for the cultures come from. They come from animals. I know many researchers that are working with cell cultures but they have to get the cells from somewhere. If they’re studying an enzyme in the liver where do you think they’re going to get the liver cells? In fact except for cancer cells, normal cells don’t last all that long in culture. Animal rights activists choose to ignore that cell cultures aren’t an absolute replacement. An enormous amount of research is done with cell cultures.
Computer models too have limitation in that you have to know the information first n order to input it into the computer. If you don’t continue to do the research then you’re computer program is only as good as the last research done. It would quickly become out dated.
It’s a common fallacy by animal rights activists that for some reason all these alternatives exist and the researchers refuse to use them. It just isn’t true. They are used when applicable. You never use pictures of a mouse in a microisolator cage beccause nobody would think that’s abuse. Instead you stick with the same old pictures of primates in restraint chairs as though that represents all medical research. It’s dishonest at best.
Jack,
I think you’ve missed a key statement that’s already been made here:
“No one is saying testing will end today or tomorrow. What we’re saying is that testing is not ethically justifiable just because humans–or our companion animals–derive some benefits from it. We have benefitted from experimentation on unwilling humans, in the past (and likely will again in the future). That doesn’t mean that experimenting on unwilling (SUBJECTS) is ethically acceptable.
It is only our own species bias that chooses to privilege human desire above all other considerations that causes us to attempt to ignore the obvious: we can choose. We can devise better alternatives.”
This is a question of *ethics*. Where viable alternatives to animal testing do not currently exist, all haste should be made to develop them. Is this not the great enterprise of scientific progress, developing new technology and stuff??
I’d like to clarify a point you seem not to grasp about the principles of animal rights: we do not differentiate between the inherent value of any species, be they those of glamourous ones they make programs about on Animal Planet, or those we choose to fetishize for our own personal enjoyment. (This is why welfare groups get so upset about the slaughter of cats & dogs & dolphins for human consumption in Asia while totally ignoring the suffering & death of billions of “food” animals in their own culture. This is the hallmark of the welfarist mindset, and why animal rights and animal welfare are NOT the same thing.)
Animal rights activists do not make any discrimination between the quality of suffering of the rodents and the primates used in your and your friends’ laboratories. Both cases are morally unjustifiable and abusive. One is no more acceptable than the other.
When I was a little girl, every few months representatives from the local university would come by my grade school and pass out little envelopes for us to take home to our parents and return the next day with a dollar donation to buy a mouse for their research department. On the front of that envelope was a little smiling mouse, and since I, like most children, loved animals I’d always beg for that dollar and unfailingly return that envelope the next day. Of course, being a child, I thought that dollar for the smiling mouse meant, like, someone was going to get a mouse to to feed and hold and play with. That those researchers didn’t put a picture of rows and rows of mice in microisolators on those envelopes, or an image of a distinctly unsmiling mouse being injected with deadly pathogens is deeply dishonest at best, don’t you think?
So if we don’t test using animal models how should we find treatments for our pets…
Pet keeping should end. It won’t end today or tomorrow, but it’s not acceptable to breed millions of animals just to create the artificial need of animals that need our care.
Testing should end. It won’t end today or tomorrow, but that it serves a human interest doesn’t mean it’s acceptable. We need to use alternatives where we have them, and develop alternatives where we don’t.
Babble,
But even Camille had a companion animal, was she wrong for having one? I have two cats that I adopted from the local SPCA, who knew I was such a horrible person for doing so? I guess it would have been better to let them get euthanized to spare them the need to be artificially cared for. Maybe in your world, not mine.
Once again, alternatives are used where they exist. And oddly it’s the researchers that develop most of those alternatives. Again, cell cultures require the harvesting of cells. Where do you plan to get those? Computer models require updated information to remain relevant. How do you think the progamers know how to make a computer liver function? Where do you think they got the information? It’s not enough to make a blanket statement that, “All animal testing should stop and alternatives should be used.” That’s too easy and solves nothing. It just appeals to a knee jerk reaction designed to illicit emotional responses without really thinking about solving anything. If the animal rights activists don’t like animal research then you should help work towards developing workable alternatives instead of just whining from your soap box.
Soscha,
Intersting name by the way. Yes the envelope was not a good idea. Was this here in the US? Just curious is all because I’ve never heard of such a tactic. At any rate, I like many other researchers would welcome usable alternatives to animal research. And currently they are used when possible.
I don’t think we’re going to convince each other regarding animals versus humans. I do place a greater importance on humans which is why I support animal research. It’s fine if you don’t. I have no problem with people believing that and working peacefully towards fixing that. But be part of the solution, not just a cog in the problem. Instead of attacking researchers why not spend some of that energy helping to develop the alternatives? Some animal rights activists are so blinded by their hatred that they don’t really want to help solve anything, they just want to create problems and cause distruction.
While I know you disagree with the whole concept, I spend a considerable amount of my time training young scientists that the animals they are using can not be treated as merely and means to their ends. The welfare of the animals comes before doing their cell culture work or other experiments.
I can tell from the responses that very few animal rights activists really know what goes on in an animal research facility. My guess is most rely on what they’ve been told by other animal rights activists. I think many of you would be surprised at the level of dedication those caring for the animals have for them. I’m also guessing you wouldn’t care.
“But even Camille had a companion animal, was she wrong for having one?”
I think my position isn’t dissimilar from most ARA’s.
The social practice of pet *keeping* needs to end, because the exploitation of these animals leads to an immense amount of suffering, any way you slice it.
That being said, the individual animals that are here now didn’t ask to be bred, and won’t survive if we simply turn them loose to roam the city (well; they’d possibly survive, of a kind of survival, but it would be a life of immense suffering itself).
The point isn’t to punish animals for the choices humans have made.
If a given animal use serves a legitimate human need, I make a very small number of exceptions for that use. But we need to work to change the conditions as quickly as possible so that animals are no longer used in those ways.
If a given animal use serves a legitimate animal need, the same holds.
None of this calls for forced euthanasia of any animals; it says don’t *purchase* animals from breeders, and perpetuate the problem.
I can tell from the responses that very few animal rights activists really know what goes on in an animal research facility.
You’re not really listening. It doesn’t actually matter if lab mice suffer horribly or are quite comfortable, in some instances. The issue is that they’re not ours to use as a resource.
Jack,
Yes, the smiling mouse incident did take place in the US. In the heart of the great Midwest. Iowa, to be exact, which even given its recent legalization of same sex marriage is still part of America, I do believe.
I’m glad to hear you’ve adopted two cats from your local SPCA. You seem to be holding as many misconceptions about animal rights activists as you think animal rights activists hold about you. ARAs actually encourage people to adopt homeless animals from shelters. In case you many not already know, an estimated 6-8 million dogs & cats are euthanized in the US each year due to…well that’s the thing, isn’t it? It’s due to irresponsible human behavior. We brought domesticated animals into that equation, and as such we are also now responsible for their welfare. Yes, humans have started to make laws to protect such animals from rampant neglect and abuse, but they’re very rarely reported and even more rarely enforced. Turn on an episode of “Animal Cops” sometime and see what I mean. Are you familiar at all with the situation in the Everglades, where we now have breeding populations of non-native pythons decimating native wildlife because someone bought a snake that they didn’t/couldn’t/shouldn’t in the first place want to take care of?
Pet ownership is an institution that should come to end. As long as institution exists that perpetuates the ownership of another sentient creature with its interests by another, the interests of those that “own” will trump that of the “owned”. Apart from the fact that the keeping of domestic animals is not a responsibility we as a species are able to handle, it’s one we shouldn’t have taken on the first place.
It sounds like you also agree that the institution of animal testing should could to end, am I correct? You do say that where viable alternatives exist, you and your colleagues use them, and that you welcome any usuable alternative to animal testing where they currently do not. Are you willing stand up, today, and say this unequivocally? Are you willing to stand with us in calling for an end to all unnecessary animal testing (that where viable alternatives presently exist) today, and declare that viable alternatives to those that do not present exist be developed with all haste?
I would like to believe you will do this, Jack, but I have to say it’s a bit disingenuous for you to demand that the onus for developing these viable alternatives be on animal rights activists while letting yourself as a trained researcher and yours, the whole of the scientific community, off the hook.
Lastly, I can’t really grant you a special dispensation for training your charges to adhere to basic care and consideration standards for the animals in their laboratories. I’d like to think you don’t really view them as a “means to an end” or treat them as if their welfare comes before all other considerations, even though we both know *they are* and *it does not*. Again, it’s not a matter of treatment, Jack, it’s a matter of moral and ethical standards. Yes, if you were going to infect me the HIV virus without my consent, I would prefer that you not wrench my arms behind my back, knock me against the counter, or fail to clean up the excrement I leave in my holding cell daily. Yes, of course, I’d prefer you didn’t do those things, but that’s entirely beside the point, isn’t it?
I completely agree with you, Ward. The concept of “pets” is an abomination and needs to end.
However, my companion animals are rescues who are here because of human irresponsibility and greed. So, just to be clear, I care for them — I do not own them.
But I do love them all dearly.
Jack,
I really want to nail this point home:
Yes, ARA are willing to be part of the solution here. But we need you to be part of the solution, too.
What do you say?
Oh, no question; I love my cat. But that doesn’t justify breeding and selling and otherwise commodifying animals. I’m not saying all pet owners abuse or neglect their pets. I’m saying that as a fundamental ethical question, pet ownership involves seeing these animals as possesions; as our property.
That some, or even very many pet owners may love their pets, regard them as a member of the family, and take very good care of those animals is nice.
I’d like to believe I don’t “own” my cat, as well. But in the current social construct, she’s as much a piece of property as livestock. She may be afforded some VERY minimal welfare consideration, when and where such laws may be enforced (which as we all know isn’t often), but I could sell her, or give her away, or turn her over to an animal shelter when I was done using her for whatever “humane” purpose suited my fancy and I would face no legal sanction whatsoever.
That she (presumably) loves me, and would suffer as a result of these actions is immaterial, in the current custom. She’s not regarded as an individual with her own wants and needs; her interests are not valued, at all, unlike, say, abandoned, neglected or abused *children*.
That I *WILL NOT* do this to my cat is immaterial. I love her, desperately.
But that doesn’t change any of the underlying ethical issues.
There seems to be some misconception that because people like myself that are involved in animal research we somehow don’t care about animals. It’s not as though because I support animal research I also condone the clubbing of baby seals. I thinik the pet trade is horrible too. I’ve always adopted from local shelters and to be honest think they make better companions anyway. A mutt beats a purebred any day. I’d have no qualms about having puppy mills shut down. We’re not the picture some in the animal rights movement would like to paint us.
I applaud your desire for a perfect world, really I do. I have no problem with people working towards finding alternatives to animal research. I have no problem with people wanting to ensure that welfare laws are enforceable and meaningful. What I do object to are some of the tactics used by some animal rights members. I object to firebombing someones house. You wouldn’t like it if I did it to you now would you? I object to harassing those in research and destroying property. Those types of actions do more harm than good for your cause. Especially in the climate of anger towards terrorism, which is what those tactics are.
That said, I work with reality. The reality is that animal research is needed right now. My chosen job is to ensure that the animals used are treated as humanely as possible and to make sure those working with animals understand the care they must provide. As you say, you’re not going to change the system soon so in the meantime there are people like myself doing what we can to ensure the animals are not abused. I’m sure our definitions of abuse differ though.
I by no means meant to imply that the scientific community has an obligation to work towards alternatives. My point was that they do more in that line than most animal rights activists. But right now, in reality, the alternatives aren’t nearly sufficient and that’s why I do what I do.
Camille,
I think you’re splitting hairs. It’s not as though your animals have made a conscious choice to stay with you. I love my cats too and I’m glad that when they get sick there is a veterinarian to take them too that can heal them. I’m glad that there are medicines out there that can treat their ills and those medicines were developed using animal research.
If I adopted a human child as opposed to a companion animal, that child also had no choice in the matter.
It’s simply the decent thing to do.
Beyond that, human or nonhuman, physician or vet, I’m entirely consistent –
There seems to be some misconception that because people like myself that are involved in animal research we somehow don’t care about animals.
You seem to be operating under the misconception that we don’t already know that. Yes, by your own personal estimation, you care about *some* animals. That you don’t club seal pups or treat your dog well is nice. It’s nice for you, and it’s nice for your dog. No one is disputing that.
That doesn’t change the fact that the animals you *do* test or train on are a means to an end, as are the animals you eat (may I presume you’re non-vegan?)
I’d have no qualms about having puppy mills shut down. We’re not the picture some in the animal rights movement would like to paint us.
I want puppy mills (and so-called “responsible”) breeders shut down TOO, Jack. But I also want YOU shut down, as well. The problem here is that you’re resting on claims of human benefit as though that makes your actions ethically neutral. They’re not. They’re wrong. In the service of some human purpose, perhaps, and perhaps a justifiable wrong in the minds of many, but nevertheless still *wrong*. It does not matter if a slave owner treats his slaves relatively well, or he beats them nightly: slavery is still wrong.
I applaud your desire for a perfect world, really I do.
None of us are being utopian. When we move beyond seeing animals as exploitable resources, as a means to our ends, we will still have places where our interests conflict with animal interests. What we’re asking for is that society take more consideration of those animal interests into account than we do *now*, and we don’t default to using animals for our purposes without a VERY good reason for doing so. Most – the vast majority, really – of our claimed “necessity cases” now are really just issues of human pleasure or convenience.
I have no problem with people working towards finding alternatives to animal research.
Then you have more of an onus, if you wish to be taken seriously, in your welfare claims here, to do MORE than you’re doing now, to make those welfare standards mean something. I mean “you” generally, in terms of the scientific community as a whole. You’re going to do whatever you’re going to do; implement tighter standards, or don’t. It won’t change the fundamental ethical issue either way. Animals STILL won’t be ours to use.
We won’t stop advocating for an end to research if you change some standards of treatment. IF you do, that will at least be something, and it will make the many claims that the scientific community “cares” about animal welfare a little less tedious and patently annoying, but there is no magical welfare standard that will make animals acceptable to use as resources for our ends.
I object to firebombing someones house.
So do I; but you (again, the scientific community as a whole) refuse to listen. Some folks are tired of being polite and attempting to be heard by a brick wall.
You wouldn’t like it if I did it to you now would you?
No, but while I disagree with the *tactic* on political and moral grounds, I understand the *motivation.* It’s not about me, or what I like. It’s not about you, or what you like. It’s about the animals we’re enslaving for our purposes, with no end in sight.
That said, I work with reality. The reality is that animal research is needed right now.
You keep saying that as if you’re being told otherwise. See several of my comments earlier in the thread. See Soscha’s. Etc.
My chosen job is to ensure that the animals used are treated as humanely as possible…
No, Jack, it isn’t. As humanely as *possible* would be not to use animals AT ALL. You’re willing to treat animals as humanely as you WISH, in order to satisfy your emotional preference not to see animals suffer according to some arbitrary standard of “too much suffering,” while still continuing to use animals.
I understand that you may not *enjoy* causing suffering. But when you get right down to it, the claimed human benefit trumps animal suffering, first, last and always. You’re not doing ANYTHING to ensure these animals are used as humanely as *possible*. You’re ensuring some standards of welfare, as defined by you, when you see fit to allow for it, and you’re denying it, when you see fit to deny it. That’s not doing everything POSSIBLE. That’s doing the bare minimum your conscience can possibly allow, while still allowing the unethical use to persist.
This is akin to people who claim they’re upset because vegans are “preachy” and we don’t pat people on the head for eating as “little meat as possible.” As little as *possible* is simple: none.
As you say, you’re not going to change the system soon
If we stop calling for an end to testing, we won’t change the system *at all*.
so in the meantime there are people like myself doing what we can to ensure the animals are not abused.
No, you’re doing what you can to allow yourself to claim they’re not abused “too much.” They are still abused. You just see much of it as acceptable abuse, given that humans will derive benefits from that abuse.
I’m sure our definitions of abuse differ though.
The entire system of animal exploitation is abuse. It’s not all *equally* bad, but it is all bad.
But right now, in reality, the alternatives aren’t nearly sufficient and that’s why I do what I do.
Then develop better alternatives. Right now, while the community keeps harping on about claimed human benefits, no real movement toward alternatives is happening *AT ALL*. Yes, there are some token measures. That’s not progress. That’s PR.
Camille,
You’re against veterinarians? Odd. Where do you stand on things like Seeing Eye dogs and the such. I had a friend who was a quadriplegic due to a car accident and he was afforded a trained dog that would help him with simple tasks that were beyond his ability. It allowed him to live on his own instead of in a hospital. How about the use of drug sniffing dogs (unless you’re in favor of illegal drugs. That’s your business)? There are even dogs used now for sniffing out cancer in patients. Not sure how that works but it’s pretty cool. How about therapy dogs? If you ban all domesticated animals what would happen to the types of people that benefit from their services? Do we tell the blind and injured, “Tough shit buddy, sucks being you.”?
Don’t put words in my mouth, Jack. I am not against vets, or doctors, or science. I’m against bad science grounded in the past that’s both dangerous and unethical.
Animals are not a resource to be exploited by humans — not in a lab, not sniffing packages for law enforcement, not to assist disabled humans.
What are you not understanding?
Right, because “service animals” are the sole available option for assistance for the blind.
Did the dogs consent to being used in this way? We’ll never, ever know. But we don’t CARE. We did what we wanted TO those animals, and we then justify it by saying, a) it serves a human purpose, and b) we aren’t harming the animals when we do use them.
Again, a slave holder could treat his slaves nicely, or he could beat them nightly. Yes, treating them nicely is nicer for the slaves than being beaten every night. But not being slaves is better than either.
I notice you didn’t tackle the comments about blowing up peoples houses. But that’s fine, I’m done with this blog. Clearly you love animals more than people and that’s fine, but we’re not going to accomplish anything by talking anymore so have a nice life.
Jack,
You imply that you’d be willing to forego animal testing if there were viable alternatives but right now it’s a “necessity”, you say. Let me ask you this: what do you call “necessity?” what would you be willing to give up right now, today?
- Drug studies, since over 90% of drugs deemed safe on animals are found unsafe or ineffective when tested on humans? (Big waste of money if you ask me)
- How about unconscionably cruel studies, for example, the one Henry Spira is famous for putting and end to at the Museum of Natural History where cat’s brains were damaged to see if they’d try to have sex with a rabbit over another cat? Really important stuff here.
- Other pointless behavioural and psychological studies?
- Burn studies?
- The Draize eye test?
- Heart disease studies that promise hope to fat Westerners that eat too much fast food?
Do you see the problem here? The assholes who invasively mutilated cats’ brains convinced themselves that their work is necessary.
I notice you didn’t tackle the comments about blowing up peoples houses.
I notice that you’re ignoring the fact that I did, so you can complain about this.