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.
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
Joe
Gag 'em!
25.07.2004 13:55
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
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
Samantha
criminals
25.07.2004 16:26
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Cynic
Get a Life!
27.07.2004 17:31
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
e-mail:
murraymurray@london.com
David Murray another A**hole of the universe
27.07.2004 18:52
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 >>
Blah
you cannot be serious
27.07.2004 19:32
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
Placator
oh brother ...
27.07.2004 20:34
.. 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
e-mail:
jackslucid@hotmail.com
Dead from the feet up
27.07.2004 20:35
Zulu
stupidness
27.07.2004 21:57
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
(On Behalf of SPEAK)
Rebel W
Alive thanks to modern medicine
28.07.2004 11:12
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Kris
oh angry
01.08.2004 19:27
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
e-mail:
downhamkris@hotmail.com
Kris makes more sense
02.08.2004 23:30
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
Kris
Reinforcements?
03.08.2004 12:15
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
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
“ 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
Kris
Kris
PLEASE!!
03.08.2004 19:56
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
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
"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
Dolphin
animal sanctuary's are not like zoo's
04.08.2004 19:32
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Kris
Café is a red herring
06.08.2004 11:51
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
Kris
Mere survival our goal ?
06.08.2004 13:57
Dickhead
different views!!
06.08.2004 15:22
Kris
well done kris mate
06.08.2004 20:04
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
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
I don’t think anybody has made any attempt to explain this.
Placator
You're all under arrest!
09.08.2004 17:06
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
Humanitas
animal research is bad
10.08.2004 20:17
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
Humanitas
what the hell!
11.08.2004 19:37
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
Humanitas
feeling passionate bout something
12.08.2004 19:48
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
Humanitas
Humanitoss
17.08.2004 22:13
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
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
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
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
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
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
“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
Alyson
you just love animal torture
21.08.2004 09:35
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
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
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
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
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
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
Do you believe that everybody who uses the National Health Service is evil ?
I pity you.
Placator
read this...
29.08.2004 13:20
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
Placator
OOh hark at Placator doing some research
30.08.2004 07:03
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
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
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
Kris
Does "you" mean YOU ?
31.08.2004 09:56
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
Kris
People come first
31.08.2004 17:43
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
Kris
what the hell is wrong with you!
31.08.2004 20:57
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
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
Kris
human suffering
01.09.2004 21:10
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
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
libby