Skip to content or view screen version

SPEAK FREE - Support freedom of speach!

Bob Roberts | 25.07.2004 13:16 | Animal Liberation | Bio-technology | Repression | Oxford

SPEAK FREE - The author announces the intention to create a protest organisation to speak out against animal liberation activists and support freedom of speach, which until now has not been possible due to the repression of scientists and researchers through intimidation and fear.

Animal activists around the world have been repressing the freedom of speach of researchers working with animals through acts of intimidation and relentless harassment. The animal activists target individuals and their families to bring fear and terror into their lives.

The proposed organisation SPEAK FREE would counter the misinformed claims of animal liberation activists and would highlight the insidious actions of this movement, bringing these to the attention of the community. The pain, suffering and misery inflicted on humans will be exposed.

A group of dedicated individuals who support freedom of speach have been working undercover inside several animal liberation organisations for several years to understand the secretive mechanisms of these organisations and to develop methods that would ensure a successful campaign against the deprivation of human liberty.

SPEAK FREE acknowledges that the use of animals in research environments should be minimised. However, the rights of those involved in the research must be upheld.

SPEAK FREE urges you all to speak out against repression and intimidation and support freedom of speach.

Bob Roberts

Comments

Hide the following 103 comments

Not just researchers and scientists

25.07.2004 13:42

Go for it Bob, its not just the researchers and scientists they scare the pants out of, its the poor people on the streets as well. They demonstrated yesterday and shouted abuse at people in town.

Joe


Gag 'em!

25.07.2004 13:55

>The pain, suffering and misery inflicted on humans will be exposed.

The animal rights movement are already being extremely effective in exposing how animal tested drugs ruin peoples health and kill them, and that the biotech industries could not care less about the human death toll that the poisons that they put on the drug market create.

It surely is the time for the animal testing industry to SHUT UP and STOP WHINGING and start individually looking for alternate more ethical lines of work: window cleaners, gardners, litter pickers, something you can pat yourselves on the back for ... there's plenty to do when the life sciences industry finally collapses.

So, rather than DESTROYING the animal and human communities around you, you actually could start to help by doing something to serve the community.



Pointer


Animal Liberation does not attack free speech

25.07.2004 15:20

"Animal activists around the world have been repressing the freedom of speach [sic]"

The industries that test on (non-human) animals are targeted because of their actions, not their words. This issue has nothing to do with defending free speech. The animal testing industry can't win the argument so it tries to shift condemnation from themselves onto the tactics of their most militant opponents. Thats like saying 'suicide bombings are bad so the occupation of palestine is good' [not that animal activists have carried out acts on a par with suicide bombings, its just an example].

When arguments are presented for animal testing, they always rest on a utilitarian notion of the greatest good - 'hurting animals to save humans is a justifiable trade-off' etc. This straight away shows that the vast amount of animal testing that is done for cosmetics and household chemicals is completely unjustifiable, and the perpertrators would be locked up and banned from keeping animals for cruelty if they weren't doing it for profit (which seems to put them above the law).

Animal testing for medical purposes is notoriously flawed. Even our closet relatives - chimpanzees and gorillas - have significantly different reactions to drugs and other substances than we do. Animal testing ensures drugs can be approved that are unsafe for humans and safe drugs not used because they caused undesirable side-effects in a different species. Its a scam - the head of Glaxo- recently admitted that only 30-50% of his firms drugs actually do what they are supposed to do (the Ecologist).

I am not a militant animal rights activist and I do not agree with all the tactics used by the movement. However, I support their primary objective. Animal testing deservers to be consigned to the dustbin of other defunct nineteenth century sciences like phrenology.

Animal


Silenced by fear

25.07.2004 15:37

It seems that as soon as someone says something that may be in favour of anmal testing, then they run the risk of having people harass them in their homes, slashing their tyres and pouring paint on their cars. So the solution for them is not to speak out. This is repression and is against the ideals of freedom of speech. So we may support the idea that animals shouldn't be used in testing, however we should respect the idea that others may not see the same. By repressing the beliefs of those who think otherwise, we are not engaging in a free debate, rather a one sided debate based upon suppressing one side of the debate by bringing torment into the lives of fellow human beings.

Samantha


criminals

25.07.2004 16:26

Hey Samantha,

What about the white coated monsters that bring torment upon the lives of animals?

The cowards that commit these crimes against animals are no better than pedophiles, both hurt the innocent and defenceless because it is easy to terrorise those that cannot fight back, that is why both, pedophiles and vivisectors choose children and animals.

Wake up! I suppose you would argue towards giving a platform of open speech to pedophile sickos too.

Michael


animal researchers are only trying to do what they believe is good for the world

25.07.2004 17:13

Michael, your thoughts about the researchers being criminals is flawed!

It is a counterconstructive claim that does not assist your cause. You can not compare someone who lives within the law and abides by codes of conduct seen to be morally and ethically sound by their community to those who perform sick acts on children.

Change the laws and change what society and the community regards to be morally and ethically sound, but don't attack people personally for what they believe to be the good of the community.

Researchers are not sick and twisted, they seriously believe that they can help people by their work. They do not get a thrill from using animals. Instead, they value the contribution that animals make to their research.

Those who do get a thrill from animal suffering do so in their own homes and backyards and out on the streets. These are the people you can compare with paedophiles because these are the people motivated by exerting their own power to make up for their insecurities.

You may claim that animal researchers hide behind the protection of security and closed doors, but this is only as a result of the fear that they have from people wishing to destroy their work, not so that they can hide their work from the rest of the world.

Animal researchers, like you, still value an animal life and don't like to see animals suffering however the difference in their belief to yours is that they believe a large amount of human suffering can be relieved by what they perceive to be a small amount of animal suffering and they judge this to be worthwhile. Those against animal research, on the other hand, do not see this to be worthwhile. This is what the real debate is about.

When you realise that the vast majority of animal researchers are only trying to do what they believe is good for the world, rather than being evil and twisted, will you realise that they are not evil people, rather people who have a passion for seeing a better world just like you.

Samantha


NO TO OXFORD LABS

25.07.2004 17:52

I was on the demo yesterday along with all those people who were feeling
the same way,complete frustration at yet another animal torture lab in the
making. We were peaceful and were there for the animals.We had a minutes
silence outside the labs and i felt very emotional by the whole thing.
We didnt shout at any one and just made our presense felt.
What amazes me about all this is that the research done on animals is a
fraud.Apart from 1,000's of animals being tortured and killed by so called
scientists the pills and medicines that go on the market will harm people
and do more damage.
We cannot stand back and watch all this distruction of animals and
peoples health.
All this publicity just says that there is panic out there.
The animals dont have a choice when they are in a lab crying out for help so we
have to be their voice, now and always.

jackie


liberation to all animals

25.07.2004 18:17

After reading the vivisectors comments I felt sick.I cant believe any
one can justify going into work everday and torturing animals for a
living! Afer hearing Glaxo admit that some of the tests on
on animals dont work, what does that say to you. They brought out a drug
to help people with depression only the side effects acually made people
suicidal.It was so bad it was reported people did take their own lives.
Surely there must a better way of making a living then cutting up animals
and then not giving a shit whether they are then stuck in baron cages for the
rest of their lives and not giving any care or attention as to whether they
are suffering.
I wouldnt be able to live with myself if I was a vivisector but then you
must have a heart of stone!

libby


Spot the troll...

25.07.2004 18:18

So Bob Roberts (is that really your name...)

Come clean - which organisation are you really from - RDS / APBI / BioIndustry / VARE / SIMR or that classic bit of astroturf FRAME?

Tell us, do you support groups such as Animal Aid or NAVS or similar groups, or are you just an industry clone determined to resist all animal rights. Are you one of those people who see the Dr Hadwen Trust as an extremist organisation.

Put it simply, are you against every animal rights organisation in existance, by tarring them all with the same brush? Just how do you define extremism?

Do you really think a peaceful march through a town is violent extremism, or are you just trolling...

Werent you calling yourself Red Ted at one stage?

FtP


SPEAK FREE? Dont make me laugh!!

25.07.2004 19:52

Messsage to Samantha: The majority of vivisecors know that what they are doing is wrong, they just dont want to have to admit to themselves that they have spent all their lives testing on animals for basically nothing. And the prospect of going back to college to retrain in human based science when they have the "kudos" of being a "scientist" already.

As for somebody on this board starting a group for free speech..haha..bring it on. The animal rights movement has been asking for a public debate on the merits of vivisection for years, to no avail, because as someone else has already said on this board...they know they cannot win the scientific arguement. The more we talk about vivisection, the better as far as im concerned.

People in the know, know that the polio vaccine was delayed for years because of testing it on animals. In fact, the famous anti vivisectionist, Dr Vernon Coleman offered any vivisector £250,000 to prove on LIVE radio or TV that vivisection has ever worked, but no-one came forward, even though it was widely publicised. Kill so many animals and humans with a new drug and eventually, you may find a drug that may work. In fact, animal tested drugs are the biggest human killer of our times. Ooh I could go on, but you get my drift.

NO TO THE OXFORD LAB.

And by the way, in almost every undercover investigation in vivisection labs, there has been cases of cruelty. Even Oxford.....they were filmed undercover a couple of years ago by the NAVS and a lab worker was caught on camera bashing an animals head on a work bench until it died, while laughing his head off.

Hmm...lovely people!!

Alyson


animal researchers are only trying.....

25.07.2004 20:56

So we have a vivisector crawling out from under their blood soaked
white coat to tell the world how they treat the animals with care.
Please do me a favour. The endless undercover investigations that have
gone on where the so called animal researcher has grabbed a beagle and
made it scream and cry out in pain only to be told im not in the mood
today! Or the one with the monkey with stitches in its poor head
because its had a brain damage operation and sitting there in a tiny
cage hugging itself because it doesnt know what the hell happened!
All this is just mass animal abuse.
So its a defiante NO TO OXFORD LAB!!!

jay


test for spelling.

26.07.2004 06:56

SPEECH, dear Bob, not speach. Instead of trolling and baiting, in defence of the indefensible, why not curl up with a book, and learn to spell.

Apart from that, we should remember that for these so-called scientists, their lives seem to be in the ownership of the testing companies. Pharmeceuticals, cosmetics, and of course, the chemical and biological warfare research establishments.

Those of us not wishing to confront these scientists and laboratory workers ourselves may simply boycott the products.

The chemical/pharmeceutical industry is under much attack, simply for their charlatan snake-oil salesmanlikwe behaviour.

Magic medicines, pills and potions that are absolute rubbish, and greatly overpriced.

"Lemsip", "Aspirin", "deodorants"; all products that pander to our frailness of character.

These companies are looking for scapegoats, as their factories face competition from asia and eastern europe. They want to close their u.k. factories. So lets blame the activists eh? How soon before they announce that they are transferring their testing to Calcutta, or Prague?

b.t. fish


stop the animal abuse

26.07.2004 19:38

In response to samantha and the blood on her hands I would like to
add something. Boc uses all sorts of gases to gas beagles. They choke,
gag and vomit. What experiment would you class that as!
They fall unconsious and then left to die alone. Tell me that is one
experiment that wont change the world or help people with getting
better.
The debate here is why are we still allowing this to happen.
I cant wait for the day when all the labs are closed and animal
liberation is here, i wonder what you gonna put on your P45 -
ANIMAL KILLER!!!

wanda


You're kidding, Bob

26.07.2004 23:45

I didn't realise that Indymedia ever did support freedom of speech.

Cynic


Get a Life!

27.07.2004 17:31

It really is ramarkable how defenders of animal experimentation get so much abuse. People above rant about 'torture' (look it up in a dictionary, fercrissake!); experiementers are compared with child-abusers. There really are a lot more important things in the world than whether a few dogs are gassed, or whatever.

The only sense I can make of it is that it is the outcome of the do-goodery mentality of: let's find the most oppressed group - the working class ... no; the Palestinians ... well they'll sort of do, but it's the mutts that take the biscuit.

The guy who made the original posting was even accused of being a front for the corps. It's quite simply that animalrightists have no logic on their side so can only resort to abuse. Well I think that Bob didn't go far enough. It's not just that the freedom of speech of pro-experimenters should be defended, but that the scum who attack them should get some of their own medicine.

Does animal experimentation help humans or not? Well none of the stuff I've seen suggests that it doesn't. Even if a lot of it doeesn't - so what? I care about humans, not about mutts and monkeys and anyone who doens't is an enemy of humanity.

David Murray
mail e-mail: murraymurray@london.com


David Murray another A**hole of the universe

27.07.2004 18:52

What about the 10,000+ people dying in the UK every year through taking animal tested drugs and the hundreds of thousands that have already died globally through being poisoned to death by taking these unsafe drugs?

Don't tell us that you care about anything but your self and your ego within the human causes that you pretend to fight for.

YOU have a lot to learn about compassion. You need to outstretch your arms to embrace and defend ALL life. Sucker.

Here, you will learn some facts that hopefully will shut your speciest mouth up >>
 http://www.vivisection-absurd.org.uk

Blah


you cannot be serious

27.07.2004 19:32

Im wondering whether this site has been set up for a wind up.
Is there really people that stupid out there that they cant see what is
happening.
There are plenty of websites for you to take a look to know that vivisection
is fraud. Testing on animals, all animals, not just a few muts as you put
it,have been put through hell all so that we can wear makeup, wash our clothes
and dye our hair and that is just the tip of the iceburg.
Not to mention the baboons who have one of their eyes removed so a stroke
can be induced so that the mad scientist's can see what happens.
So you ignorant human being,why dont you get on the internet and learn a
little. If you care about life at all then whatever life it is,animal or
human show some bloody compassion.

libby


Do try to think a little.

27.07.2004 19:45

Libby, the scientists aren't mad. They are clever men trying to understand strokes. You might get a stroke one day.

Placator


oh brother ...

27.07.2004 20:34

... and sister ..

.. save us from these 'scientists' in white coats setting out to save us ..

Yeah sure .. nuclear power is your friend, better weapons make free societies, gm food will feed the world, cloning is for those poor childless couples ..

Dominate and enslave mother earth, because you scientific fellows know better - you're 'experts'!

Idiots.

Making the world safe for mascara & optical whiteners ... follow the $$$ ... that's where the MAJORITY of it goes. Kill some squirrals, cut up a few monkeys and low and behold your product has passed the tests ... safe to sell it now.

Whores and idiots.

jackslucid
mail e-mail: jackslucid@hotmail.com


Dead from the feet up

27.07.2004 20:35

a good description of the troll 'placator' ... unalive, zombiefied and fed on lies ...

Zulu


stupidness

27.07.2004 21:57

Placator are you for real! Thought this site was for adult conversation.
We seem to have lost the plot somewhere along the lines.
I seriously think that you have no idea what goes on in the torture labs
If you were to read or surf the net on vivisection I think you would
have a argument but to get personal and just use this site to abuse people
isnt very grown now is it.
There are so many examples of animal testing that doesnt work.
Glaxo brought out a anti depresssent a little while ago and then admited they
had made a mistake when people actually became suicidal. Glaxo, i dont know
if you are aware, are a huge pharmacutical company who test everything they
can on all sorts of animals.
I dont think you can be so naieve to think these people will save you.



libby


SPEAK and SPEAK

27.07.2004 22:06

SPEAK, the Christian Student Justice Campaigning organisation is not the same organisation as the SPEAK talked about here. The two groups are in talks to sort this confusion out. SPEAK does not oppose the work of SPEAK which ever way you look at it, but they are still separate organisations. Thank you.
(On Behalf of SPEAK)

Rebel W


Alive thanks to modern medicine

28.07.2004 11:12

I am real, human, and alive. I am not a zombie, a troll, or any other kind of third-class citizen. But I would certainly not be alive if it was not for drugs and medical procedures tested on animals. Even some of you may have been saved by vaccines without knowing it.

Some of you miss the point of such tests. Obviously after a drug has been tested on animals, it needs to be tested on human volunteers, and all this is required by legislation. Even then, unfortunately, it cannot be guaranteed to be effective or even completely safe for all people over a longer period.

This must be particularly true of a drug for a pyschiatric condition. An initial trial on animals will do little more than ensure that it does not immediately cause very alarming problems like (say) paralysis or cancer. It is of enormous benefit to human volunteers to eliminate these major risks, before trying to establish how effective the drug is and whether it does more subtle damage. But you can hardly expect to detect a very small percentage of increased suicidal tendency in the rats, or even in the human volunteers.

Just stop and think of members of your family who have benefitted from modern medicine. Have compassion for us as well as for animals. I cannot realy believe that you would all want to return to the eighteenth century. If you think this now, you won't when you are a little older.

Placator


Activists are the con artists making the money

29.07.2004 18:46

Hey, have you stopped to think about the fact that the extreme activists are making money out of this? So much for being against the capitalist companies exploiting poor little furry animals. It is all a facade to lure people in to donate a few quid to a "worthy cause" which is in fact a money making scam of some people to sponsor them to get a kick out of kicking other people around and justifying it to the community! Activism is an industry, it makes money and the ring leaders pocket it and use it to fuel their own egos. These ring leaders are responsible for more propaganda and misinformation than the governments and companies who according to these activists are supposed to be the ones conspiring. Think about it: a government is responsible to its voters and taxpayers and a company is responsible to its shareholders, its employees and its customers (as well as the rest of the community, who can also be seen as stakeholders to a lesser degree). They cannot hide behind closed doors as easily and the notion of "conspiracy" is much more difficult. As for activists... well they are responsible and answerable to nobody except themselves and they conduct their business and plotting in secret behind closed doors. Now this isn't to say that conspiracy doesn't happen with the government or with companies, but where is it more likely to occur? It is more likely to occur with the individuals who are tending to their own egos rather than the companies and governments who are responsible to a wide range of stakeholders... do the stakeholder analysis and you will see who is really kidding who!

So either you can believe the lies of the activists, or the lies of the government and big companies... or see the truth that they both lie, but one group tells bigger lies than the other!

Geoff


ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ..

30.07.2004 01:05

It's incredible just how bloody fucking stupid people are. The media can puppet tens of thousands, even millions just by publishing alarmist headlines in their daily rags. What joy for them ... and a hardon and payrise too.

Walking round with a blindfold on, fingers in your ears and your head up someone academics arse may suit you animal abuse supporting halfwits, but it doesn't suit me nor does it impress me. I follow no god nor scientist. I am not scared and need to cling on to NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, that you creeps and halfwits have built or conjured up to hold your shitty scared, paranoid, mentally insane 'society' together.


You really are Absolutely Pathetic, and will stoop to becoming the lowest form of humanity when your MASTERS order you too! Enjoy the brainwash, PUPPETS!

Shame on you!

juggernaut


response to Geoff bullshit

30.07.2004 10:51

Activists are the con artists making the money
29.07.2004 19:46

Hey, have you stopped to think about the fact that the extreme activists are making money out of this? - on what do you base this
It is all a facade to lure people in to donate a few quid to a "worthy cause" which is in fact a money making scam of some people to sponsor them to get a kick out of kicking other people around and justifying it to the community! Actually arsehole the money raised through stalls goes towards things like printing leaflets and newsletters, I have done Shac stall's and it's pretty regular for Shac to be in debt to the tune of several thousnad piounds with their printers you moron. Other costs range from paying activists on low income travel expenses, susbsididing transport to demos, making equipment avialable cheaply to name but a few. Oh and on the subject of stalls it's a 50/50 thing but suprisingly a lot of people go as far as to say these animal torture's should be wasted and thats ordinary members of the public
Activism is an industry, it makes money and the ring leaders pocket it and use it to fuel their own egos. what an absolute load of crap, I wthinkl you should how basic some of these so-called ring leadres live.
Geoff you haven't got a clue you are a truely a prise tosser, whom is either someone better and twisetd coz they can't be bothered to do anthing or a wannabe Daily Express journalist

Active Slaughter


what the hell is this all about

30.07.2004 20:31

What the hell is going on out there! There has been so much bad
publicity surrounding the animal rights movement Im surprised any
one would want to do anything in any campaigns.
Because of a handful of thugs who decided they are beyond the law
now we have a new legislation that will make any copper think he
has the right to abuse,shove and nick activists whenever they feel like
it.
What the hell happened to peaceful protests!
If the ALF felt so strongly about Oxford why didnt they just blow the
building up.
The media are having a hay day and if any one wants to join a group I
reckon you should think twice who you join.

no name


More system views

31.07.2004 09:16

oh by the way I am suprised by how much bullshit people beleive, killing animals amounts to profit not saving lifes, 10's of thousands of people die every year because of adverse affects of drugs tested on animals. Reserach on animals is big business and has nothing to do with saving lifes- any one who thinks so is simply brainwashed by their lords and masters. If technolgy is so advanced that we can create new generations of nuclear weapons it's at a stage where we don't need to test on animals- anyone who advocates that we do is pro- the sysytem- I though people who use this site were supposed to be anarchist. Alternatives to animal research get a measley £600,000 per year there are single animal experiments that cost that.
Also any one who goes on about AR protestors being violent needs to wake up, the real violence is these naimals dieing, people dieing because of their useless research and the type of companuises who use vivisection are killing your planet in a number of ways.
I have absoultley no symapthy for the so-called victims of Animal rights extremists anything they get they ahve brought it on themselves

Vivisection is the the real terror


Non sequitur

31.07.2004 23:43

"If technolgy is so advanced that we can create new generations of nuclear weapons it's at a stage where we don't need to test on animals" .

This is a complete non-sequitur.
The person who wrote it is irrational and does not understand the subject.
I'm sorry, but there has been far more abuse than that from other writers, and we do NOT all have to be "anarchists" with identical views that we dare not stray from as a mattter of policy.

Many people would not be alive now if it was not for drugs and medical procedures tested on animals. That is the purpose of the testing. Does anybody seriously believe that universities and governments are so stupid as to spend huge amounts of money on medical research which never has useful results and is simply a con trick to get money out of them ? Well, it seems some of you do ...... Who stands to make money from this new lab in Oxford anyway? Not the drug companies, if the animal research doesn't develop better drugs.

"If technology is so advanced that we can make machine guns, then it is at a stage where we have no need to develop antibiotics". Did anyone come to that conclusion during the second world war? Of course not. It's absurd.

Placator


lets take a visit then

01.08.2004 16:58

As there is so many different opinions out there maybe we should take
a day out to HLS. On the news the other day we saw rats in air conditioned
units and it all was very cosy but what you will never see is the real labs,
where there are all sort of animals being punched,kicked and laughed at while
they are being disected.
It makes me wonder if you were really serious about the debate of how wonderful
the vivisection industry is and the progress they are supposed to making
what you would do if you saw it up close and personal.
And if you took medication that was tested on an animal and think you are
fine then what about the side effects.
We have different genes to animals so how the hell can it ever work!
Lets arrange that day out at HLS,bet Brian Cass(the accountant) would
love that-NOT!

Libby


Pure propaganda, and a cruel truth

01.08.2004 17:40

"the real labs, where there are all sort of animals being punched,kicked and laughed at while they are being disected." Libby.

I don't believe this. It is crude propaganda.
When scientist are conducting important and expensive experiments on animals or on any material, they do not punch and kick and generally have what Libby assumes to be a good time. It would invalidate the results and render the whole exercise pointless.

Yes, the medication I took to save my life did have side effects, but at least I am alive, and now am perfectly well. If Libby had breast cancer, the chemotherapy would cause her terrible side effects. This has really got nothing to do with testing on animals. Would she just give up and die, I wonder ? We'll see when her time comes. Almost everybody gets something in the end.

Placator


No violence in animal labs?

01.08.2004 18:35

We have absolute proof placator of what you just dont want to hear/dont care about. There was a channel 4 documentary last year showing beagle puppies being punched in the face by lab workers, and simulating having sex with them. All caught by an undercover reporter. Also, Oxford Uni were caught out when the NAVS went in undercover two years ago and filmed a lab worker bashing a rats head on a workbench until it was dead, all the while laughing. Animal experiments are just cheap insurance to get drugs onto the market to make money. If a drug causes side effects in an animal, it is put on the market anyway due to the differences between animals and humans. On the other hand, if a drug doesnt cause side effects on an animal, it is deemed ok to go onto the market also. If we dont know which experiments work (humans are the eventual guinea pigs), then none work. This government promised a Royal Commission into the value of vivisection BEFORE they came into power. A Royal Commission would be looking in to vivisection to see if it is of any value to humans at all. Now they wont do this because they know they will lose the arguement and lose LOTS of profit. They pander to the big pharmaceuticals who invest a lot of money into the government.

Kris


oh angry

01.08.2004 19:27

Ok Placator getting angry there.You see, if you prefer to close your
eyes to what really happens in the labs then go ahead but Im afraid
you seem to have no idea.
Take the phalidimide drug,that was tested on animals,for pregnant
woman and morning sickness,and because it appeared to be safe they
put it on the market and then look what happened,kids born without limbs.
Personally that to me is proof enough.Not only did the animals suffer
in horrendous conditions,people suffered too.
There is plenty of undercover footage on the net,guess you wont be
looking though, cos as you put it your well and thats great!
If I did get ill,I would look at alternative medicines, because unlike
you I know everything about vivisection and it makes me sick to the
stomach.


libby


How can this 'useless' activity make a profit ?

02.08.2004 00:06

Libby dear, it was thalidomide, not phalidomide. Your knowledge of this does seem very limited, and also your logic. “Proof enough” of what? Obviously it proves that animal testing does not always pick up unfortunate side effects in humans, but nobody disputes that, and it doesn’t prove anything else. You say “ ...people suffered too”. How would not testing it on animals have prevented this? Are you saying that the health service can operate without any drugs at all, in fact people should just let illnesses and pregnancies take their course with no proper medical care ? Very few people are going to agree with this approach.

You write “There is plenty of undercover footage on the net, guess you wont be
looking though, cos AS YOU PUT IT your well and thats great!”
I never wrote that. I wrote:
“Yes, the medication I took to save my life did have side effects, but at least I am alive, and now am perfectly well.”
It does not follow that I will not look at the internet because I am well: presumably you are well, but you look at the internet. I did NOT say that anything was “great” .
You are a person who twists the evidence, not very convincingly.

If you depend on alternative medicines to cure cancer, you will die. They don’t work on cancer, and consequently it is illegal to advertise that they do.

Kris writes: “A Royal Commission would be looking in to vivisection to see if it is of any value to humans at all. Now they wont do this because they know they will lose the agreement and lose LOTS of profit.”
I don’t see where the profit can possibly be in animal experimentation if, as you all insist, it doesn’t work. In this case it would just be an added cost to developing a new drug, and the pharmaceutical companies would themselves be campaigning for it no longer to be compulsory !

Obviously any pointless and sadistic ill-treatment of animals is deplorable and should be stamped out by the management of the laboratories insofar as it occurs. It’s like teachers hitting childen, but cases of that never justified closing down the entire education system.









Placator


Machine gun your self

02.08.2004 10:29

OK Placator you clever person you or wotever the fuck you are- the point I was making dickhead is that we live in an age where almost anything is possible technoligically speaking.
It's just wankers like you think that vivisection is an acceptable thing to do, rather than a complete U-turn whee animal research is replaced by something more ethical.
I wish that people like you would wake up or top your self and stop acting like you're oh so high and mighty with your education and upper middle class credentials.
Vivisection kills animals and people there shouldn't even be room to debate it's wrong,wrong,wrong and so is anyone who supports it

UP THE ALF


A dickhead speaks out

02.08.2004 13:43

No, I’m sorry ‘Up the Alf’, you vulgar and abusive person, we do NOT “live in an age where almost anything is possible technologically speaking.” Your faith in capitalism and technology is touching, but largely unfounded. Lots of things are still not possible, and one of them is alleviating many painful and life-threatening human conditions; another is researching into doing so without testing the new procedures on animals. Perhaps those of you who prefer animals to people would like to volunteer to take the place of the animals ? That would be one solution.

When you or Libby (if she is separate) get appendicitis, are you going to have the operation without modern anaesthetics, or not at all ? What if a leg gets gangrenous becaue you refuse antibiotics: will you have it amputated with a saw without anaesthetics? It’s a pity that surgeons no longer train to do it exceptionally quickly.

I am just an ordinary person like you, with a spellchecker on my computer as you probably have too. I am not “upper middle class”. But even if I was, I would be entitled to my views, which I think most people share. This is a democracy, and we are all entitled to Speak Free and support freedom of speech, which is the very title of this item that you are contributing to.

But you think “there shouldn’t even be room to debate it” and you want your opponents the dickheads and wankers to machine gun themselves. Meanwhile, you call for “a complete U-turn whee animal research is replaced by something more ethical.” What exactly? You are altogether not a very convincing advocate for it so far, anyway!

Placator Dickhead


placator loves the system

02.08.2004 15:22

Placator up the ALF wasn't saying they are for the system but you obviously are. I don't concern myslef with scientific arguments anyway I'll leave that to people who do and get on with raising funds,awareness,protesting, helping rescue animals, fighting for better human rights to name just a few things as part fo a weekly routine
You are obviously the one into the system as you support the torture of animals to make drugs which kill people. I don't need convincing vivisection is wrong, it's a luxury to get the extended life expactancy we have anyway- but maybe this will do for someone who has a lot more faith in the system (than I do) for start  http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/info/conferences/rrr/rrr_en.html
or just try looking at Shac or Speaks websites and they list plenty of info for people like you who think we have a right to out live natural expatancy. I personally think if you are dieing of cancer coz tyopu smoke (lie i do) it';s tough shit and no amount of animal research will everr justify a cure for what you have caused your self.
tell you what go back to reading the sun coz this is called Indymedia and your views are better suited to the sun or the Telegraph than pretending you somehow are different to that view- cheers

Dave shoulda hit him harder


no excuses in this day and age

02.08.2004 16:00

just to add a couple more sites with alternatives to research
 http://www.crueltyfreeshop.com/drhadwen/
www.pcrm.org

there really is no excuse to do any more research on animals the only people who benefit (if you can call them that- I wouldn't) are the huge multinationals and sadists who get off on abusing animals (and people too)

Brian Cass loves Placator


Hard-hitting comments do not convince

02.08.2004 19:25

No, I don’t read the Sun or the Telegraph, nor the Express nor the Mail, and I have never smoked. I don’t vote Conservative or UK Independence Party or National Front or BNP. I have never drunk excessively or been overweight. I am a pretty ordinary leftish person with quite a healthy lifestyle. Anyway, people do read different newspapers and they don’t all have to agree with (apparently) thugs like ‘Dave shoulda hit himharder’. Some don’t. Read the rest of the comments above. This is a democratic country with free speech. Indymedia is supposed to allow people to have dissenting views.

Personally, I think that the really cruel people are those who tell fellow human beings with serious illnesses that they have probably brought it on themselves, or anyway it is just hard luck. I have come across this before. It is not endearing.

‘Dave shoulda hit him harder’ misses the point ! If ‘Up the Alf’ believes that “we live in an age where almost anything is possible technologically speaking”, then (inconvenient though it may be) he or she must have a lot of faith in the technology of the capitalist society we live in, far more than I have. It’s bizarre that she things science and technology can do almost anything, whereas you are loftily above concerning yourself with scientific arguments (reality?) at all. You only have in common an excessive compassion for animals coupled with a callous lack of feelings for fellow human beings in distress. You also share a tendency to distort your references. I never said that I support the torture of animals to make drugs which kill people. Useful experiments are not the same as torture. Sometimes doctors have to administer painful treatment, but this does not make them torturers! And the purpose of medical animal research is certainly not to make drugs which kill people. I am not in favour of developing biological warfare.

Still nobody has explained how the drug companies or the “multinationals” profit and benefit from animal experiments if they are unnecessary and don’t work !

Placator Dickhead


Placator

02.08.2004 22:27

The pharmaceutical companies make money simply by putting drugs onto the market. We buy them and they make money. In the academic world, a scientist must attract funding. In order to do so, he or she must publish their work, and to do this, they will often repeat experiments a hundred times over. Most of these experiments are for house hold products. This gives them the experiments they need to attract the funding. We still experiment on animals because of some bygone law made hundreds of years ago. If we stop experimenting on animals, smaller amounts of drugs would get onto the market and profits would crash.

And by the way, the old "I bet you take drugs when you've got a headache" routine is one we hear all the time. If I made a stand against everything I believed in, I wouldnt go anywhere, or see anyone. I try not to use products which have been tested on animals, but its pretty hard when everything has. Humans are the real guinea pigs. Like I said.....its cheap insurance. Test a drug on an animal and the animal gets side effects, it goes onto the market anyway. If it doesnt harm the animal, it goes onto the market also. Its an old draconian leglislation which allows drugs to go on the market.

Kris
mail e-mail: downhamkris@hotmail.com


Kris makes more sense

02.08.2004 23:30

This is a very well-argued comment from Kris. Unfortunately, he is not very truthful about this “bygone law made hundreds of years ago”. It must in fact have been less than a century ago. People were exposed to huge quantities of grossly toxic products in the 18th and 19th centuries.

One is not so much concerned with headaches and minor side effects, as with much more serious conditions and major side effects. You can’t just equate these as being all the same. If arsenic wrecks the nervous system of rats, it wrecks the nervous system of people too, but people were indeed suffering from this until recent times, because a variety of products were not properly controlled.

However, you still haven’t explained why drug companies don’t join you in trying to get this old draconian legislation repealed. For them (as opposed to scientists who actually want to do research) it is nothing but an expensive nuisance if, as you insist, it is unnecessary. I don’t see it being repealed in such a way that nothing new could ever be manufactured or sold in the UK , which would have disastrous effects (including an exodus of scientists, entrepreneurs and doctors abroad, to say nothing of patients). No, the new drugs would go on being made but without animal testing, which according to you would make no difference, though it would be interesting to know what percentage are actually rejected at the animal testing stage.

Another correction: Most companies make money simply by putting products onto the market. We buy them and they make money. (So what ?). But this does NOT apply in the UK in most cases to the companies being mainly discussed here, pharmaceutical companies. We do not usually buy the drugs directly. They are bought by the National Health Service, a much better informed and more choosy customer than the general public.

I don’t think I’m going to convince anybody to moderate their extremism, though.

Placator Dickhead


Sigh!!

03.08.2004 09:57

Well, I guess some people just like the idea of vivisection. The bravest thing anyone can do, is admit that they may be wrong, but it's human nature to stay stubborn.

Kris


Reinforcements?

03.08.2004 12:15

No, I don’t like the idea of vivisection at all. It is unpleasant but sometimes necessary, like many operations on human beings too. Nor am I refusing to admit that I am wrong out of mere stubbornness, any more than Kris is. After a good showing, Kris is now digging his head into the sand like some of his less bright chums. Incidentally, not all animal experiments do in fact involve cutting live animals, which is what “vivisection” means !

I don’t know if ‘Dave shoulda hit him harder’ thinks George Monbiot is “for the system”, but I wouldn’t describe him like that myself. I don’t know if he reads the Sun and the Telegraph, but he contributes to the Guardian. Today he comments that the Oxford demonstrators “command little public sympathy”, and I would suggest that many of the comments above illustrate this point very well. He writes: “Their arguments are often wooly and poorly presented. Among them is a small number of dangerous characters who appear to respect the rights of every mammal except Homo Sapiens”, and he even uses the term “dangerous nutters” .

Just as these comments here come under the heading “Speak Free — Support Freedom of Speech” George Monbiot is writing under the heading “A threat to democracy”. It really is not a good idea mindlessly to call your moderate opponents wankers and dickheads and advise them to machine gun themselves. There is sympathy to be had, but not like that.

Placator Dickhead


He he, I can fight ANY arguement the pro viv lot put to me!!

03.08.2004 13:36

First of all placator, maybe people shouldnt call you names but it's very frustrating being anti-vivisection. People in the movement are absolutely passionate about what they believe in, which is why we are making such progress.

Im not sure who this George guy is, but you can bet he has a vested interest in vivisection someway down the line. People would have us all down as thugs but we are getting more and more support from doctors etc. People think we are all on the dole and smoke drugs all day. This is pure propaganda to discredit us, as is when people call us terrorists. We regularly have midwives, solicitors, nurses etc campaigning outside the proposed lab site and the Government and the scientists are getting worried because even with all their money, the billions that they have, the small passionate group that we are, with our limited funds are winning. They say our arguements are often wooley. Well....why dont we have this Royal Commission (open public debate on vivisection the
Government promised us) and get it all out into the open. Most campaigners are not scientists, but we have read the arguement from both sides, and have various scientists that DO support us and would be willing to do a live debate. The reason we are not getting this promised Royal Commission is because they are afraid they will lose. I know of one Doctor, Dr Vernon Coleman who offered any vivisectionist 250k to debate LIVE on TV or radio with him to prove animal experiments work and noone took him up on the offer even though it was widely publicised.

You know, even if I thought vivisection did work, I would still fight it on moral grounds. We have seen the pictures of the guinea pigs being pumped full of household cleaner until it can hardly breath. Who says we have the right to do this? We may be the more "intelligent" species, but if thats the case, then we should have the compassion to treat other beings as we would like to be treated. Placator, I can give you an answer for any scientific arguement you or anyone else throws at me.

KrisTINE


George Monbiot Vivisectionist ?

03.08.2004 18:36

Kristine writes:
“ Im not sure who this George guy is, but you can bet he has a vested interest in vivisection someway down the line.”

I think that says it all really !

Anyone who dares to speak out against them is crudely branded by them (at best), even George Monbiot. Yet at least one Oxford Green candidate was very pleased to quote George Monbiot to increase the chances of getting elected.

Monbiot writes: “This unpopularity [of Animal Rights extremists] is a gift to the state. For fear of being seen to sympathise with dangerous nutters, hardly anyone dares to speak out against the repressive laws with which the government intends to restrain them”. You are planning your own martyrdom, and never mind the consequences to the rest of us.

But hardly anyone dares to speak out against the extremists either, for obvious reasons. This is definitely not encouraging free speech in a democratic society.

George Monbiot writes in the same article (Guardian 3rd August, page 17) “..voting is now a less important democratic instrument than ... the ability to register our discontent during a government’s term in office.” Surely your kind of man? But he’s not very keen on some of the animal rights demonstrators in Oxford, so BANG: “you can bet he has a vested interest in vivisection”. Well done, Kristine who can fight any argument !

Placataor Dickhead


: ))

03.08.2004 19:10

You know what Placator.....at least animal rights people will tell you you're a moron. You, like most of the pro vivisection lot seem to walk around with a permanent smirk on your faces. You think its sooo funny to act holier than thou...well animal rights people are real and honest, not walking around thinking they are somehow better than society. You totally ignored my comments as to why vivisection doesnt work ( in my and many other peoples opinion). Your days are numbered and I hope you enjoy your sordid little fantasies about vivisection. I cannot believe ive even wasted my time in writing to you, with your superior attitute. You want to believe that vivisection works, which is why you wont listen. If I was pro vivisection, I would really want someone to change my views, but you just love the idea. You're an uptight cruel little individual and I hope you will be very unhappy in your cruel sadistic little world. Oh and by the way, I CAN fight any scientific arguement you want, but youre only interested in your ambition to be a pin striped suited servant for the rest of your life.

Kris

Kris


PLEASE!!

03.08.2004 19:56

This is getting all rather tedious with Placator. As I said before
Tony Banks was in the mail on sunday saying how wrong vivisection is
and it should be brought out into the open.
Animal rights campaigners have been compared to the terrorists that
killed all those poor people on sept 11th! The goverment have defiantely
lost the plot.
In my opinion its not just vivisection thats wrong,its the circus's,
zoo's and anything that uses animals in an abusive way for our
entertainment,food or even for wearing.
I pity Placator because the truth is out there but he doesnt care and that
says alot about him as a human,bet your applying to oxford as a animal
torturer as we speak! your wasting your time mate cos the Oxford labs aint
gonna ever happen!!!
Liberation forever and up yours

libby


Have compassion for PEOPLE too

03.08.2004 22:54

Animal Rights People are very fond of telling people they are morons, dickheads and wankers. Abuse is one of the things they are very good at. I am real as I have already assured you, and it seems to me that it’s the Animal Rights People who insist they are better than society ! Is the argument which I ignored your claim that products are put on the market even if they fail the animal testing? This is simply not true. What would be the point, and where would be the much-publicised profit for the manufacturer ?

When you need serious hospital treatment, you spend a lot of time with other people in the same situation, and make friends with them. As you go back for check-ups over the years, you come across literally many hundreds of people, all manner of occupations and ages, and healthy now, who would not even be alive if the drugs and operations had not been developed on animals, which they undeniably have been. “Tough shit” say you narrow-minded little anoraks. You seem to prefer rats. Any species but our own, as Monbiot has commented.

Actually, you couldn’t have picked on someone who wears a suit less than I do — not even at weddings! I am even very fond of animals. I haven’t got any “sordid little fantasies about vivisection”. Like George Monbiot, I am the wrong target, believe me. And just what is Libby going to do with the animals in the zoos when she has abolished zoos ? Old Jumbo will be very happy stealing people’s harvests in India, I’m sure, and some really hard-up Bedouin might buy a camel or two, I suppose. Or she could open an animal sanctuary in the home counties, but isn’t that essentially what a zoo is ?

By the way, you really ought to look at www.monbiot.com before you say any more about him. You might lose some of your sympathisers, while not your fanatical supporters, if you’re not more careful who you routinely insult.


Placator Dickhead


Anti-vivisectionists need to get a lesson in logic

04.08.2004 00:12

Consider:
"10's of thousands of people die every year because of adverse affects of drugs tested on animals"

It is not logical to say "because people have been harmed by the medicine, then animal testing is wrong" and it is also not logical to say "because animal testing was done, the medicine caused harm to people". Animal testing does not produce bad medicine however incorrect animal testing can allow bad medicine to become accepted or good medicine to be rejected. Animal testing may provide a useful tool in screening for medicine, unfortunately no one screen on its own is reliable and we need a range of tests before we can be sure.

In fact, one could equally argue that the adverse effects cited are from insufficient animal testing! So now do we need to support more animal tests? Not necessarily, in fact we need to support scientifically sound experiments. Now bad science may have been done, but we should endeavour to be critical of any bad science, be it done on animals or not. But we can't say that because bad science was done on animals, then animal testing is wrong. Can animal experiments be scientifically sound - yes, if we control the parameters, understand the system, generate good results, analyse these results properly and draw sound conclusions. Just as human cloning and the use of foetal stem cells can be scientifically sound, so can animal testing. Can these tests be ethically sound... now this is what the debate is about. Some say yes, and others say no.

Now, to argue "animals have different genes from people, so animal testing doesn't work" well this is both true and untrue, and even when true interesting conclusions may be made. Many of the genes and many of the biochemical pathways in animals are similar. Many are also different. By knowing the differences and the similarities, scientists can work out models for illness and disease in both humans and in animals. Animals suffer from many diseases in the same way as people, however they also suffer from many diseased differently. We share many similarities in our physiology and our biochemsitry and many systems behave in very similar ways. Animal testing means a better understanding of these differences and it makes it less likely that mistakes will be made in the future. In fact a vast number of animal tests are not directly used to tests drugs, but to understand systems and the use of drugs is used to study the system rather than a system being used to test drugs. In the long term this means smarter testing - more scientifically sound testing! So for some, this is the way to go because it increases the likelihood of a positive outcome and the value of the animal life lost is increased. For those who disagree with animal testing, then no price can be put on the loss of an animal life. Again, it is the value of an animal life that is the issue, not the science.

Animal testing is not just about drugs or commercial profit, it is also about understanding life on this planet, where it has come from, where it is going and the best ways to conserve it. For example, if it wasn't for animal testing, it would also be more difficult to conserve endangered species and to understand the complex biology in this world. We are also appreciating the value of animals more through animal testing. If it wasn't for testing of animals, we wouldn't place such a large value on their lives, animal cruelty would be more accepted and we wouldn't feel so compassionate for animals. There would be a much lower respect for animals because we wouldn't understand them as well as we do today.

The reason animal testing can be considered wrong is because we see it wrong to use animals for human consumption. This is a perfectly valid reason and it is a noble cause to be fighting for the lives of animals. However others see it as being right when the animals are being used to help people, and here the desire to help people is also a perfectly noble cause. They may take this further and look at the complex food chains that exist on Earth and say that because other animals don't have a problem consuming each other, then we shouldn't have a problem with it either.

So we have these two beliefs, both trying to do good for the world, but both beliefs can not be reconciled. So we need to call for a balance. We need to say "yes, animal testing causes harm to animal, we don't like it, and we don't want to see it", BUT at the same time recognise that people want to understand our world and develop ways of improving our lives. Drugs can improve lives and they can improve our understanding of animal biology as well as human biology, however quite often drugs are misused and they cause harm to people, but this isn't because animal testing produces bad medicine. Without animal testing, drugs would still be misused and bad drugs would still be created.

So the issues are all about the differences or similarities between harm and suffering caused to animals compared to people and the rights or wrongs of using animals for human causes. Now do we just say no to mammal testing? Or maybe just no to apes, as we currently do? Or maybe just no to cute and furry and fluffy animals that have such helpless looks on their faces? Is certain types of testing ok, and why or why not? Is testing of insects ok? Now insects are further genetically from people and so are generally deemed less useful in drug testing (with some exceptions). However understanding of simple neural networks, insect vision and similar is becoming useful in robotics and computing! Why would it be ok or wrong to use insects in animal testing? What sort of harm and suffering do insects feel? How about testing on fish? Or reptiles? Fish and reptiles are interesting because they display an ability for neural regeneration not seen in other types of animals. This means we may be able to understand spinal cord regeneration through animal testing, but we could never understand it if we just studied humans alone. We need a comparative system and an understanding of the differences to understand what is happening! How about testing on birds? Some birds show high degrees of intelligence and have ben shown to make tools, this tool making however was shown in animal testing, testing that was motivated to understand animals better and to appreciate them better, and not motivated out of pharmaceutical industries and commercial interests!

For now, the majority of people see it as reasonable to eat animals, to wear animals on their feet and even to use animals for medical research. Don't attack the companies and institutions which are providing people with what they seek. One needs to change people's beliefs so that they do not accept the use of animals in furthering the goals of humans. This is a big task because we use animals all over the world for many reasons!However, if people eventually agree with this, then the tide will turn. If they disagree, then one who believes this should still speak up peacefully and logically, but must not spread lies and must not use propaganda. In the long run lies and propaganda do not further one's cause.

Samantha


Save the Dolphins!

04.08.2004 00:16

We need to go to Africa and hold our placards up in front of all the lion prides that rip apart poor defenceless animals every day... poor things... and we need to show solidarity with the dolphins and the whales that are mauled by sharks across the world by swimming with them as they are attaked in a feeding frenzy!

Dolphin


animal sanctuary's are not like zoo's

04.08.2004 19:32

Placator,
If I had a piece of land and it was big enough to house elephants or
such like then it would be fantastic! Zoo's house animals that are out
of their natural environment and are made to do tricks for people that
do not have a clue.When you go home from a zoo or circus you have the
choice to walk away, the animals have to stay behind in their prison which
is usually too small.Animal sanctuary's are completely different,the animals
are left to roam free,no one expects them to do tricks and are aloud to
live their lives.Monkey world in Dorset is a huge retreat for monkeys that
have been rescued from labs,circus's and photographers that have used them in
places like Turkey,the monkeys have to perform for the public on a tight lead
and if they dont they are starved and beaten.It was on tv a little while ago
and the people that run the sanctuary are amazing,spending 24/7 caring for
these poor creatures that never stood a chance but have some sort of life now.
You say you are an animal lover,so surely you have some sympathy for what
goes on out there.
As I said before I dont eat animals or where them because Its wrong and I
feel just as strongly about that as I do about vivisection.
Liberation 4 all.


libby


vegan and bloody proud

04.08.2004 20:02

Its a only a matter of time Samantha and the truth will out! You wont
be able to hide behind your blood stained lab coat and pretend your
the fucking saint that you claim to be! your a nasty,vindictive
and fucked up vivisector that thinks they have all the answers.
You dont! More and more people are becoming vegetarian and vegan and
peoples views about eating animals,wearing animals and in your case
torturing animals are sickened by it all.
You cannot justify your job.Since all the media frenzy people want
answers as to why animals experiments are still going on and they want
to see it for their own eyes. Even Tony Banks said channel 4 should
go inside the labs to see what you tortuters get up to.
You have to be the most hated type of person there is.
What goes around comes around in my opinion,who knows in your next life
you will come back as a lab animal,who will hear you scream then!

Jo


its humans that are the problam

04.08.2004 21:46

dolphins comments are typical of people that have no understanding
of animal rights and the campaigning that goes on out there.
Firstly its humans that cause the suffering to animals as in labs,zoo's,
circus's,factory farming and any other money making industry that causes
pain and suffering.
If animals were allowed to live the way they were meant to we would'nt
be out there with our placards and megaphones telling people to stop.
Secondly if the fish are living freely and are trying to survive without
any human intervention then thats the way nature intended.
Let me make the point here to dolphin,Japan has dolphins that should be
living freely but they decided to intervine and capture these beautiful
creatures and cut their throats and bleed them to death.Dolphins have many
nerves in their necks and to miss the jugular vain would be lead to a long
and painful death. Dolphine is a delicacy in Japan.
Want to make a joke now!
Animals have the right to live how nature intended and
not be eaten,worn or be tested on by HUMANS.

no name


Why the abuse?

04.08.2004 23:20

Hey all, why are you calling me bloodstained? I like animals, I don't do vivisection and I couldn't stand to see poor animals hurt. I don't even have a labcoat! However we need a logical debate here. We can't be going around and using bad arguments to further a cause, in the end it doesn't work.

Get down and argue the real issues as I have pointed out. Read what I have written and think about it, don't dismiss it as rubbish because you think I am a vivisectionist... that just proves that you are closed minded... we need an open minded, constructive debate looking at it from all sides and working out a solution. Slagging matches don't solve anything except intimidate people and scare them away. Thats not real debate and it doesn't lead to an open society.

The issue comes down to a belief that animals are not there for humans to use... historically humans have consumed animals, so why should this change today? Why are humans different to other meat eating animals? Why are we no longer a predator? Why is it now unnatural to kill animals, to eat them, to use them for our own purposes? Why is it no longer right to use animals? What has changed to make us realise this new paradigm? Answer these issues and you stand a chance of getting your message across. Bring up propaganda, and it only stirs and causes antagonism. You can't force your beliefs on others, you need to make them accept your beliefs!

One needs to argue why it is different today to consume animals than it was in the past. We could argue that it is no longer right because we have an increased understanding of what it means to be alive and we better understand the complexities of animals and so we now value animal life more than we did in the past. We could argue that we now understand what animal suffering is and so we must endeavour to stop it. That being said, one could then argue that we also have a greater understanding of what it means to be human... this could either work in favour or against the idea of animal testing. If we argue that humans are guardians of the Earth, then we can argue that animal testing is wrong because we must protect animal life at all costs. If we argue that to be human means we improve human life and reduce human suffering, then perhaps it is natural to use animals for our cause. We must also consider what the difference between human suffering and animal suffering is. What allows us to compare animal suffering with human suffering? Can we compare them? Why can we say animal suffering is less or no less than human suffering? Now these are the real issues that need to be addressed.

So what does it mean to be human? What differences are there between animals and humans (or why are there no differences)? Why is it now wrong to use animals (or has it always been wrong)? When did we become human so that we were no longer animals and no longer consumed other animals without regard for other animals' lives? Answer these questions and people will want to listen to you. Go on shouting abuse and propagating lies, and people will turn off to your cause.

Samantha


Samantha

05.08.2004 08:33

Hi Samantha

You make very good points in your questions re the moral arguement of animals being used. But the thing is, we believe we can win the arguement on scientific grounds. I think the big issue here is that the pro-vivisectionists believe their Doctors and what they have heard, and we believe our anti-vivisection Doctors and their arguements about it. As for us spreading lies and propaganda, this just isnt true. We are telling you what we know. We believe its the Government and the pharmaceuticals that spread lies and propaganda and you believe the opposite. The reason you get attacked for your views, is that we just cannot believe that anyone could have such views, but until the scientific community come out into the open ( and we have been asking them to for years)and maybe start off with the promised Royal Commission, people will believe what they WANT to believe.

Kris

Kris


Samantha is great

05.08.2004 11:17

Samantha is wonderful, but most of these people will certainly not understand her. The latest is even the unusually moderate and intelligent Kris, who “just cannot believe that anyone could have such views” . It was predictable that Samantha would be branded a sadistic blood-stained vivisectionist torturer, like George Monbiot and myself.

Essentially Animal Rights Extremists think like President Bush. “You are either with us or against us.” If you are not totally “good”, then you must be totally “evil”. Innit ?

Samantha calls for logic, but misquoting and idiocy are so rife that they would be almost impossible to improve on with satire. “The fucking saint that you claim to be” ! Samantha never claimed to be a fucking saint, and in fact it is obvious to any right-minded person that she must be just an upper-middle-class moronic wanker like I’m supposed to be. She probably reads the Sun and the Telegraph, like me and George Monbiot.

I suspect one of Samantha’s mistakes was sentences like “This means we may be able to understand spinal cord regeneration through animal testing”. They thought she and her friends were going to have a go themselves ! Jo, Jo, read this sentence carefully: “One needs to change people's beliefs so that they do not accept the use of animals in furthering the goals of humans.” Don’t you think she might have been on your side, at least then ?
Why the abuse, then? Because that’s what they do !

Oh dear, Libby, have you ever been to Whipsnade Zoo? How are you ever going to amass enough land to make the London Zoo’s elephants and other animals more comfortable than they are there ?

I don’t see either why it is OK for sharks to rip up dolphins, but not for Japanese to do it. It smacks of racism, and I doubt if the dolphins themselves have any preferences.

Placator Dickhead


honestly!

05.08.2004 19:50

seems to me placator you just want to argue the odds,know matter what I
say you dont really seem to be able to grasp what Im saying.This is
the last time I will log onto this site cos i find it all too
negative.
Dolphins in japan are killed by people,they are a delicasy.
like bear bile is used in asian countrys.
Nothing to do with racism (whats that all about)
NO I havent been to whipsnade but I will say this, any animal large
or small is welcome in my home.
If animals are trying to survive in the wild or in the sea and there
is no human intervention then as far as I can see they are only trying to
survive the same as us.
Im sorry you think animal rights people are rude,they are being the voice for
the animals, they need us.We dont expect you to understand,I was like you once,
but someone showed me a video and it changed my life.
There are plenty of people out there who will listen and do their bit,I wonder,
what you will give up today!
AS ALWAYS FOR THE ANIMALS NOW AND TOMORROW!!!!!!!!



libby


Discrimination based on species...

05.08.2004 23:00

A shark can rip up a dolphin, but a human can't... now that is specieism!
Why discriminate against the human species?
Why does a human have less rights as a species than a shark?

All you animal rights people should protest against the sharks... maybe you will get eaten by one too! If not, go settle for protesting against the lions in Africa!

Dolphin


Ha ha!!

06.08.2004 07:05

Dolphin, animals eating other animals is their way of surviving. They dont have restaurants and cafes they can go into to eat. You know this is true and just trying to wind us up. Im glad we bother you so much tho if that is how you feel.

Kris


Café is a red herring

06.08.2004 11:51

But we traditionally eat other animals to survive just the same as other meat-eating animals eat other animals to survive (including us, if they get a chance). Whether we do this in a café or restaurant or at a barbecue or in the bush makes no difference in principle . It just sanitises the bloodthirsty natural process so that people aren’t too horrified by it.

You never seem to realise when people are using imaginative language to make a serious point. Why are we worse than lions and sharks ? It would be inverted speciesism to deny us our rights to survive as best we can.

Placator Dickhead


: /

06.08.2004 12:38

But isnt it in the non human animal instinct to kill and eat meat? You can argue now that maybe its our own instinct to eat meat but I would argue that we dont have to eat meat to survive. I just dont think that because a shark kills a dolphin, we animal rights activists should sit back and say "ahh well, thats ok then". If thats speceist, then im speceist.

Kris


Mere survival our goal ?

06.08.2004 13:57

So the cafés and restaurants are a red herring. You are really trying to insist that human beings are instinctively and/or properly vegetarian, which of course is not true. We could choose deliberately to avoid eating dolphins (as most of us do) and pick on another species to survive, but so could the sharks. Cats like meat too. I’m sure you don’t really want to argue that humans and cats should be made to live in the minimum conditions necessary merely to survive.

Dickhead


different views!!

06.08.2004 15:22

Humans are intelligent enough to make a choice as to what they eat. Non human animals are'nt as intelligent as us and have an inbuilt need to kill to survive, and as cruel as that may be, im afraid thats the way it is. The world would be free of starvation if we stopped eating animals, but you are never going to stop picking my posts to pieces so I shall bid you farewell and let you have the last word. See you at the demo site this week libby etc!!

Kris


well done kris mate

06.08.2004 20:04

You put up a good fight kris,well done, You cant change everyones views,
which a pity cos if everyone stopped eating meat,fish and dairy
products the world would be a much better place.What people dont seem
to realise is that at some points in our lives we ate meat etc but
luckily now we dont.If dolphin and placator want to go to
macmurders and eat all the dead flesh they can get into their face,so
be it.
I know plenty of people that feel the same as I do,thank god!
We all have choices,sadly the animals that have to endure the pain and
misery of being on a transporter for long hours heading to their fate
for the slaughter house so some meat eater can have their roast beef
disgusts me.
Good book for everyone to read-fast food nation-it tells the truth
about everything.
Stop the bullshit guys and be a veggie for a week,you may enjoy it.
If you have a proper argument dolphin then thats fine,but you are just
trying to wind everyone up,unfortunately I have much more important
things to worry about-the animals!
Till next time Kris

libby


No more animals then

06.08.2004 23:57

Bye bye cows, bye bye pigs.
It was nice having you around, but I'm afraid we won't be needing you any more.

Dickhead


That profit motive

08.08.2004 00:56

If (as campaigners always insist) animal research didn’t work, it would surely be a needless expense which pharmaceutical companies would be keen to get rid of. How then does this pointless burden increase their profits, as we are always told it does ?
I don’t think anybody has made any attempt to explain this.

Placator


You're all under arrest!

09.08.2004 17:06

Tony 'B' told me to have handcuffed, and imprison the lot of you, for even daring to argue the lefts and rights of the economic policies of the western world. Those that are in favour of murder and torture will go down too.

Hands up, spread ur legs. Yurrr are all charrrged with incitement that may have spurned the enemy 'compassion' within non believing cartels, and strengthened it within believing cartels ... come on now 'left,right,left,right ...

George W. Bush 'Fucking Madman'


One species forgotten

09.08.2004 23:55

None of the Animal Rights campaigners has shown much compassion here for the poor people who have desperately serious illnesses. "Tough shit" is how they feel about that.

Humanitas


animal research is bad

10.08.2004 20:17

This is part of a article that was written by Peter Thatchell:
We have witnessed many tragic consequences of blind faith in animal
testing.The anti rheumatic drug Opren killed 76 people in Britain and
caused serious illness to 3,500 others. Despite 7 years of animal research.
People with heart trouble suffered adversley after taking the animal vetted
drug Eraldin.
Subsequent experimentation has failed to find a single species that reacts
to Eraldin in the same way as humans.
With all the horrendeous torture that animals have to endure, I would say
that human life is in trouble too.
Of course animal rights campaigners are concerned about this.
If the government chooses to ignore the signs that vivisection is morally
wrong and makes people ill and even die, then we are in serious trouble!
Animal rights people are trying to tell the truth, we never lie and when you
get a leaflet from one of us,read it, it may change your life.

no name


People's rights paramount

11.08.2004 11:33

“No name” is picking on individual cases of failure, and obviously initial animal testing does not guarantee eventual success. But go to any hospital like the Churchill, talk to the staff and patients, and you will quickly discover that huge numbers of people have had their lives saved and/or their quality of life improved due to medication and surgical procedures which had to be tested on animals at an earlier stage. Most people have compassion for the animals as well as for these human beings, but your movement will never win much support from the public while you callously turn a blind eye to the sufferings of the people.

Humanitas


what the hell!

11.08.2004 19:37

Where have you been humanitas, if thats your real name,This conversation
has been going on forever and what so you decide we should listen to
yet another lover of vivsection. Tony Banks even said in the mail the
other sunday that vivisection is wrong.
The animal right movement has got huge since the media frenzy, did you
not read any of the papers or see the news.We are as tight as ever
and more people are willing to listen then ever.
So you see you cant say anything that hasnt been already said on this site
go back to sleep.

ANIMAL LIBERATION FOREVER

alf


No point arguing with the Mail

12.08.2004 00:04

I’m very sorry. If you have got huge with the media frenzy and the support of the Mail on Sunday and Tony Banks, there is obviously no point at all in anyone caring about human suffering any more.

Humanitas


feeling passionate bout something

12.08.2004 19:48

H, as you feel so passionate about human suffering then what are you
going to do about it? Animal rights people feel passionate about what
they are doing, the animals have no voice to say when they are in pain
and when they have had enough. At least we are out there doing something.
You say no one cares about human suffering,well there are plenty of
things you can do instead of sitting there giving grief to people who
are actually trying to make a difference.
The argument about vivisection and other such like animal abuse situations
upsets us alot and we are trying to change things. If you feel like doing
something about human suffering then sort it out for christ sake!


jez


People are more important

13.08.2004 00:09

I am doing something here. I am trying to remind a movement which wants to ban animal suffering that in doing so they will increase human suffering. I am trying to preserve the situation in which medical researchers work for the relief of human suffering at the moment. This is just as practical as what Jez is doing. I don’t suppose he is actually going to rear families of happy monkeys and keep them in his bedroom. I am not actually going to do any medical research. I am not qualified to do that, but I can speak out for the patients and medical staff involved, just as he can speak out for his monkeys and rats.

Humanitas


Humanitoss

17.08.2004 22:13

Pathetic humaniwhatever...

Cuddly humans must survive to destroy planet! everything must go! More shopping for you? A fulfilled life? Bah! It makes me PUKE. Fucking PUKE.

Go away and do what you are told. Accept your orders lovingly, and suck on the hand that feeds you. Just stop posting your shit here.


Thanks!

Twistid


Twistid is twisted

17.08.2004 23:18

Twisted is aptly named indeed.
Does he not want human beings to survive, then? This is peculiar.
Can’t he imagine a fulfilled life which does not involve shopping and destroying the planet?

In fact, I just can’t see how shopping and obeying orders come into this at all.
Seriously ill people have little interest in shopping, and are seldom given orders.
Unfortunately, they are seldom very cuddly.
There is nothing wrong in relieving human suffering, is there?
I think Twisted needs a psychiatrist.

Humanitas


feeling passionate

18.08.2004 20:12

H, you are obviously a nurse or something as you keep going on about
human suffering. Well Im as passionate about the animal suffering that
goes on out there too.
You may think that people have the upper hand on suffering but I have
seen enough animals that have to put up with day to day pain in silence.
There are alternatives to animal testing but the government are not
interested in listening. Christ if some doctors are saying its immoral
then it should stop.
It is awful to see any thing in pain,human or animal.
As you feel so much about life,you should think about the beagles,
monkeys and other such like creatures that have endure such torture
at the hands of a human.
A life is a life to me,animals cant talk or walk away,we are all they
have.
You do your thing whatever it is and we will save the helpless.
Dont use the people argument cos really its a cheap dig at the animal
rights movement.

libby


A cheap dig ?

18.08.2004 20:37

It is hardly a "cheap dig" to appeal to your better nature when real human people are suffering from painful and life-threatening diseases.

Supposing other doctors say it is not immoral? Then presumably Christ we must not ban it.

I am not a nurse.

Humanitas


who made you judge and jury!

19.08.2004 20:19

get a grip you stupid human being! Its fucking humans that cause
the suffering so dont even go there! Anyone that has the attitude
that animals lives are any less than a human and that they should be used
in experiments to save us has got to be fucked up.
You mate need to stop posting such crap on this website cos no one
actually gives a shit what you and the so called research wankers
think!

ALF


Is Alf inhuman ?

20.08.2004 23:25

Presumably Alf is also a fucking human being, though you might wonder sometimes.
Is he less stupid than average ? I very much doubt it. Who is he to be judge and jury?
Get a grip, Alf. Few people give a shit what you animal liberation wankers think.

Sorry to depart from my usual courteous style to deal with Alf !

Humanitas


Alf not a dangerous nutter

20.08.2004 23:43

Amazingly, Alf seems to think that this website belongs to him and he has the right to exclude those who disagree with him, but may I remind him how this item actually starts?
“SPEAK FREE - The author announces the intention to create a protest organisation to speak out against animal liberation activists and support freedom of speach, which until now has not been possible due to the repression of scientists and researchers through intimidation and fear.” That’s what it says, Mr Alf, right at the beginning. Read and digest and learn.

Read again George Monbiot’s comments that the Oxford demonstrators “command little public sympathy”. He writes: “Their arguments are often wooly and poorly presented.” Notice how many of the comments above illustrate this point very well. He continues: “Among them is a small number of dangerous characters who appear to respect the rights of every mammal except Homo Sapiens”, and he even uses the term “dangerous nutters” . This would not apply to our Alf, obviously.

Placator


smug pro vivisectionists

21.08.2004 07:55

At least animal rights people are honest and real in their posts, unlike the lovers of vivisection who like to think they are having a reasoned debate, but who mostly have a superior, smug, self-righteous attitude. Makes me laugh how it takes the anti-vivisectionists roughly 2-3 days to answer your posts but you lot come back almost immediately. You really arnt that important to us. There was an article in the Evening Standard a couple of weeks ago saying that animal rights people have been asking questions for ages re vivisection and they still havnt had any answers. You can quote George Montbottom all you like, funny how no lover of vivisection will take up Dr Vernon Colemans offer of 250k to prove on live tv/radio that vivisection works. But then lets face it, if we had to use more reliable methods to get drugs onto the market, then hardly any drugs would go on sale and money would be lost. You just want/like the idea of vivisection. My dad died of cancer, and so did two of my aunts and my mum had breast cancer, so dont think we dont want a cure for these diseases. I absolutely cannot stand people like you.

Alyson


you just love animal torture

21.08.2004 09:35

ALF is not a name you ignorant twats! its the people that do what they
can as in saving animal lives!
Also this debate has been raging 4 ever and as you people love
vivisection why dont you organise a radio or tv debate, Im sure there
would be alot of people interested in what you have to say,I suppose
you could be like the oxford vivisectors who said the animals are looked after,
and they have toys to play with too, would that be before they have their
inerds ripped out or invasive brain surgery without pain relief after
wards!
I have had people die of cancer in my family too,seems nothing could
save them, but we still carry on wasting animal lives to try and save us,
the worst kind of race there is, greedy,selfish and basically not really
caring about anything but ourselves and our survival.
If you wanted to argue the for's and against vivsection,then before you
go to debate then log onto a few websites and read, maybe you will
never agree that vivsection is wrong but at least you will have some
idea of what we are up against. Animal rights campaigners will never lie
about what they have seen and they are not the terrorists the media likes
to make out they are.We are fighting for the rights of this poor animals
that have no choice. AS ALWAYS FOR THE ANIMALS

no name


Sickness

22.08.2004 00:42

When Placator and Huminatas or members of their families are riddled with cancerous growths spreading rapidly through their bodies, grasping and pleeding for life in a hospital bed ... they can then curse the Biotech/Life sciences industries for delaying any type of cure for cancer by those research groups pointlessly torturing, maiming and murdering animals in the search for a cure for 'human cancer' AND GETTING ABOSOLUTELY NOWHERE whilst HOLDING BACK REAL MEDICAL PROGRESS and WASTING TAXPAYERS MONEY.

Do you think the perverted evil vivisectors care if your mother one day weeps over your cancer ridden corpse?

GET REAL and GET THE ANIMALS OUT OF THE LABS!

Terminal


I insist I am real

26.08.2004 02:18

If Alf is not to be considered a pseudonym for a contributor to this debate, it should not be used as such. Did he just fill the form in wrongly, then ? I can’t see why this makes me an “ignorant twat”.

What makes these animal rights people insist that they are more “honest and real” than anybody else? That is what I would call “smug”.

Some of their arguments are so ridiculous ! The fact that there is still no reliable treatment for some diseases shows that there is a need for more research, not less !
“If we had to use more reliable methods to get drugs onto the market, then hardly any drugs would go on sale and money would be lost.” As you all know, drug companies are commercial undertakings like any other, and they are not stupid. If the present methods didn’t work, the drug companies would not be using them, and they would not be profitable. Your twin dogmas of “doesn’t work” and “makes a lot of profit” are not compatible.

Then you are so emotional, and so gratuitously malicious to scientists, doctors, your opponents, and mankind in general:
“Do you think the perverted evil vivisectors care if your mother one day weeps over your cancer ridden corpse? GET REAL.”
Well, I am real. My mother died, having had two illnesses which could not be cured. I have had operable cancer already, and another condition which definitely depended on animal research for its successful treatment. Fellow patients and their families are very grateful for this. I will not reveal what this was for fear that they and the doctors concerned might be persecuted by you. A disgusting state of affairs!

Placator


smug or what

26.08.2004 20:20

Give yourself a pat on the back you fucking shameful human! hows it feel
to be still alive knowing you were part of the many deaths of animals
who went through hell and back just to keep you alive!
Knowing that I would be feeling sick to the gut.You sit there and try to
justify how the vivisection industry helped you,well mate nobody gives a
flying fuck! your as evil as the torturers in those labs.
How dare you sit and judge the people that really care about the suffering
that goes on in those labs when the whole time you only care about number
one. SHAME ON YOU NOW FUCK OFF!!

upyours


Counterproductive behaviour

26.08.2004 23:38

I thought we had already seen these enthusiasts in their true colours, but I find myself quite astonished at the inhumanity and hatred shown to “Placator” by “Upyours” in the circumstance which Placator relates. No wonder that animal liberation people have such a terrible reputation, despite their famous love of animals which would normally appeal to the public. It really is combined with a hatred of “fucking shameful humans”. It seems almost psychopathic.

Arguments tend to be as subtle as changing my (so necessary !) assumed name to “Humanitoss”, and referring to George Monbiot as “George Montbottom” (wit worthy of a seven-year old boy). Neither he nor I are sadistic vivisectionists who love animal torture. These people don’t seem to want sympathetic animal-loving friends who do not go the whole hog. They seem totally ignorant of who Monbiot is, in fact an eminent radical thinker devoted to the welfare of mankind and the whole planet, not somebody likely to be swayed by commercial or selfish interests at all. He has even written:

“Using animal testing for experiments in germline gene therapy is doubly repugnant
By George Monbiot. Published in the Big Issue 23rd November 1998.
At first sight, last week’s ban on using animals for cosmetic testing looked like a great victory for animal rights. In truth, however, it will make scarcely a scratch in the mountain of suffering taking place in British laboratories.... ” but he continues:
“...Personally, I believe that certain forms of animal testing are morally acceptable. ..”

See www.monbiot.com .

So much extremism is simply not helping your cause. Behaviour which Monbiot has called a threat to democracy is reported today as having transferred some more animal research to a somewhat less democratic state where animals and demonstrators (if any) are likely to enjoy more suffering than they do here. “To drugs research firms, a significant attraction of Singapore when compared to the UK is its strict law and ruthless policing. The pharmaceutical industry in Britain is under threat from violent animal rights activists and a ‘tendency to blow up scientists’, as Paul Herrling, the chairman of Novartis's new research unit in Singapore that will look at new treatments for dengue fever and tuberculosis, puts it.”

See  http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1290999,00.html
Personally, I would much rather see this sort of thing properly controlled in this country.

Well done Libby, Alf, Upyours, Twistid, Kris, Jo, ‘Dave shoulda hit him harder’, and all the gang !


Humanitas


Everybody?

27.08.2004 12:56

Dear Upyours,

Do you believe that everybody who uses the National Health Service is evil ?

I pity you.

Placator


read this...

29.08.2004 13:20

The truth about Animal experimentation, website www.curedisease.net
Have just finished reading the book which is very interesting and for those of you out
there who seem to think we are talking blah blah give the website a go or buy the book.

libby


Can't read it

29.08.2004 23:47

I would love to read it, but unlike much academic scientific research it does not seem to be available to the public out here. One needs a user name and password.

Placator


OOh hark at Placator doing some research

30.08.2004 07:03

Try www.curedisease.com

This is what we mean by believing our different scientists Placator. Nice to know, despite everything, that ur willing to at least have a look.

Kris


There's research and research ...

30.08.2004 13:24

Reading a website does not really count as "doing research"!

Would you say that looking up measles in your Family Home Doctor counted as doing medical research?

There are undeniably many examples of successful treatments developed with the help of animals. Some of the people who have benefited from them would talk to you about their experiences if they were not frightened of you and if you were not so disgustingly insulting about them.

Placator


the book

30.08.2004 20:27

just realised you do need a password oops.At least you tried placator,
anyway the book is called "The truth about animal experimentation"
and it is from European for Medical Advancement at p.o.box3804
London w13 0yr.
It really is worth taking a look at,as its more about the scientific
reality of vivisection.

libby


Wow

31.08.2004 08:36

Pardon me Placator for being civil to you!

Kris


Does "you" mean YOU ?

31.08.2004 09:56

My “you” was definitely plural, as Kris is an isolated example of the polite and intelligent amongst you. I was thinking more of the gentleman whose soothing words to human sufferers included “....you fucking shameful human!...... you only care about number one. SHAME ON YOU NOW FUCK OFF!!”. Few convalescent patients or their doctors and nurses are going to want to chat to him.

Or to Jo, who replies to the mild and logical Samantha: “You wont be able to hide behind your blood stained lab coat and pretend your the fucking saint that you claim to be! your a nasty,vindictive and fucked up vivisector...”

This is not the way to get support for yourself or for the animals, is it ? And I suspect that the better of you are ashamed to be tarred with the same brush.

Placator


They r still my friends Placator

31.08.2004 13:09

We may be a bit bolshy sometimes and most of u lot r smug. I make no apologies for my anti-viv supporters.This is a very emotional subject and doesnt mean they r thick. I dont know most of them that post on here but I do know one who has a Phd who had a gripe on this board at the pro-viv lot. We are not all loonies,jobless, or tree huggers and just because they have a pop at ur beliefs does not make them less intelligent.

Kris


People come first

31.08.2004 17:43

Almost dying is an emotional subject too.

Some contributors are not only extremely tactless, but they show a lack of logic which does appear “thick”. You should be worrying that your bolshy friends are just not helping your cause at all.

Really, it still comes down to getting more worked-up about the suffering of animals than of people. I am a humanist, you are an animalist.

Placator


I do not put animals above humans

31.08.2004 19:45

Like ive already said, I believe the scientists that r anti-vivisection and thats it!! I do however believe that all creatures should be treated with respect and be allowed to live their natural lives and if I thought vivisection worked then yes, I would still campaign for it to stop, but that doesnt mean to say that I put animals above humans. Dr Ray Greek says that if he thought vivisection worked, then he would totally advocate it, but because he says it does'nt, that is the reason he and others want to see it stopped. It comes down to who we believe, and we will always be at opposite ends of the arguement.

Kris


what the hell is wrong with you!

31.08.2004 20:57

as in the title placator what the hell is wrong with you! now who is
being abusive,angry and down right bloody minded!
I gave you,yes you, the details of a very good website so that you
could read about the scientific argument about vivisection so that
you could open your mind a little, not get all bitter and angry.
Maybe we have hit a nerve and you realise that not only are we the
animal rights campaigners are against it, but so are alot of doctors and
one day all animal testing will stop and people will then realise what
a terrible waste of animal lives.
Knowing you feel this way is really sad, I cant believe that people have
the attitude that animals should be used for us to survive.
I know we cant change everyones opinion at once but gradually people are wanting
to know the facts,except you it seems.
At the end of the day vivisection is wrong and the amount of animal suffering
that goes with it makes me weep.
Stop arguing the odds it wont work.

libby


Struck down by an unnamed disease

01.09.2004 11:29

Kris says that she would be against vivisection even if it “worked”. But then she says that it comes down to who we believe (i.e. on whether it works or not). Obviously this is not true. In her case it doesn’t.

Libby is really naive to say she can’t believe that people have the attitude that animals should be used for us to survive. She thinks it’s really sad that I don’t want to be dead.
I don’t consider that I am being abusive and angry, certainly not as compared to most Animal Rights people, yet I might have done, because for me and many of my friends this research is a matter of life or death. I have said that I am not going to reveal what is wrong with us, for obvious reasons.

“Just realised you do need a password oops” wrote Libby two days ago, and now she is boasting that she gave me, yes me, “the details of a very good website so that you could read about the scientific argument about vivisection so that you could open your mind a little, not get all bitter and angry.” But she never gave me the password ! The alternative website suggested by Kris is just an advertisement for a partisan book. Even this admits that other methods of medical research are being increasingly developed (which everybody indeed knows and accepts), not that they can replace experiments on animals completely.

Placator


Hi Placator

01.09.2004 12:37

If there is really something wrong with u that u need medication/medical advancement then I dont want to be patronising but u do have my heartfelt sympathy.....really u do. We dont want humans to be ill and die. We DO believe in alternative methods because we think they are safer. www.vernoncoleman.com is a good site to go to if ur ever interested in one of our scientists. Click on animal issues and scroll down to "why animal experiments must stop". None of us are that cruel that we would get satisfaction out of a pro-vivisectionist who has serious health issues. After all, all u want is to get better.

Kris


human suffering

01.09.2004 21:10

Kris made some good points there.I too wouldnt like to see anyone ill
or dying, If you are ill placator then you have my sympathy too.
The thing is animal experimentation can be replaced by other methods,
it has some good points in the book I recommended. Animals have completely
different genes to us so we do need other ways of research.
I am very concerned about human suffering especially when a test on
a animal has failed or worked and has the complete opposite effect on
a human.
So you see even though I have very strong opinions about animal rights I
am not made of stone towards the people issue.
I will always be fighting for the animals because they have no voice and
we are the only ones that can speak for them.

libby


some more info

01.09.2004 21:21

placator you may be interested in this. Dr Greek is co author of 3
books on the human costs of animal experiments:
Sacred cows and Golden Geese, Specious science and what will we do
if we dont experiment on animals? medical research for the 21st century.
All avaliable from  EFMA@curedisease.com

libby