Day of the Dog

I can't believe they still do stuff like this.

I'll be there.

If you do this, you're taking a stand against the human beings whose lives this research will save.

but that's what you'll always hear from pro-vivisection folks, especially those living off NIH grants

it's like when Repugs say it's jobs vs. the environment...

"if you stop experimenting on animals, all people will die"

surprising, too, that on a site like this with so much "fight the power" vibe people are so awed by entrenched biotech megabusiness killing off untold billions of animals for relatively meager returns considering the maiming and deaths of so incredibly many animals

and, regardless of selfish returns, can it be ethically justified for people to use sentient beings like inanimate tools? I, for one, think not


of course, the #1 cause of animal pain, by the numbers, is the "food" industry

just by the way........

> "if you stop experimenting on animals, all people will die"

Nobody said that, or anything like that. However, if science stops experimenting on animals, *some* people will die. Address that, and stop trying to distract us with straw men.

As far as I know, everybody dies...

(1.) Everybody dies so far. However, medical science is on the brink of fixing that. Immortality is within our grasp. The last generation to unnecessarily die from aging alone is alive today. We're that close to being able to prevent aging, as we know it, at a genetic level. For the first time in our existence, humanity is on the verge of being able to take control of our own evolution. We can become more than human. Our full potential will finally be able to be realized. Anybody who want to risk our missing out on that, just so save a bunch of guinea pigs, is out of their minds.

But hey, you have a right to be as far out of your mind as you want, as long as nobody else gets hurt. You can believe, and do, any damn fool thing that you want, as long as it only effects you. It’s your business, not ours. When it begins to effect other people, then yeah, it is our business.

I’m not suggesting that you, personally, be forced to not die. If you want to die, go right ahead. No problem. But when you start doing things that could cause other people to die, then yeah, we’re stepping in. Causing other people to die unnecessarily is not socially acceptable behavior. It always elicits a negative response.

(2.) While most people alive today will die eventually, that does not mean that we all need to die unnecessarily. If animal experimentation were to stop, people would die, who might otherwise have been cured, because discovery and/or development of that cure wouldn’t take place. Such people would be dead at your hand, just as surely as if you had put a gun to their heads. That’s murder, and it’s not socially acceptable behavior.

Putting a gun to someone’s head is a hell of a lot more humane that to condemn them to slow, painful, hideous deaths from disease. The so called “anti-vivisectionists” have no problem with humans suffering slow, painful, hideous deaths from disease, only with non humans. That makes them moral cripples. They are no different than the so called “anti-abortionists” who care about the lives of fetuses, but not children.

What the so called “anti-vivisectionists” and the so called “anti-abortionists” are *really* anti- is choice. They are against you out there being able to make a personal choice that is not the same as their own. They are ruthless, power hungry and dangerous. Like all fanatics, they are willing, even eager, to use both the armed might of the state and garden variety, pipe bomb level terrorism, to force their will upon you. Both claim the moral high ground. both are moral cripples.

If you support either of them in any way, shape or form, then you too are a moral cripple. That is, unless, you are dumb as a floorboard or out of your mind. There is no fourth explanation. To support anything that is against your own interest is stupid and or crazy. Progress in medical science is in your own personal best interest. To allow progress in medical science to be impaired, is against your own personal best interest. If you want to work against your own personal best interest, that’s your business. Go right ahead. Be stupid and crazy. We don’t care.

But when you work against *our* best interest, that is our business. That’s more than just stupid and crazy. That’s evil, and that’s how it’s going to be treated.

gets to eat dead bodies in the streets. some privileges are reserved for special dogs.

on balance, is it a fair trade for vivisection? stay tuned for more! on the vivisection channel.

right after this.

to define what is right strictly by your own self-interest, in my opinion, is evil

I assume that means you have good health insurance -- and you are receiving, or plan to, the full benefits of all of the animals we continue to exploit (not even counting the untold billions that die with no increase in medical knowledge whatsover as only a handful of the experiments actually lead to any medical advances)

but what about all those with no health insurance (or inadequate insurance)? let's see, that's 40 million in the US alone, and what about the rest of the world whereby 3/4 live in abject poverty and will never get that baboon heart transplant you crave much less anti-biotics or AIDS medications?

it's in the best self-interest of the rich in this country to deny affordable healthcare to the rest of the nation -- could mean an extra Hummer in the driveway for Junior on his 16th birthday. I guess that makes the selfish rich more sane, or smarter, than the poor fools with no health coverage or, better yet, smarter than those who do have health coverage themselves yet are worried about the healthcare coverage of the uninsured, especially if covering everyone means an increase in their own insurance rates, or increased taxes, both definitely against their own self interest.

also, I might add, that quality of life is a factor -- is it right to spend billions on futile animal experiments (which the majority unargueably are, regardless of if you think humans do or do not have a right to exploit animals for their own gain), those few profitable experiments largely benefiting a privileged class, when millions and millions have no healthcare whatsover in this country and billions have none throughout the world? and that's not even to go into the deplorable living conditions of humans across the globe that the elite ignore every day as they persue their own self interests

some might fantasize about living forever and it doesn't matter how many animals die, or how many humans must have their health or living conditions ignored, to achieve that Quixotic goal, but it doesn't make anyone crazy or stupid to care about the interests of others (even including non-human animals)

you see, you can care about people and animals at the same time if you can look beyond the myopia of your own self interest

was Gandhi crazy or stupid? many undoubtedly think so, but I don't count myself amongst them

> only a handful of the experiments actually lead to any medical advances

All experiment lead to advances. It is just as important, if not more so, to discover what does not work as it is to discover what does work. So when an experiment fails to produce a cure, that *is* and advance. Knowledge has been acquired. The acquisition of knowledge is *always* and advance.

As for self interest, all enlightened self interest is collective. It is in our collective self interest to stop a tiny bunch sick, twisted, evil fanatics from interfering in medical research that will eventually save our lives and prevent our suffering.

Why is it that these miscreants only object to death and suffering when it is non humans who suffer and die? Are they truly anti-human or just incredibly stupid? Which is it? Inquiring minds want to know.

when you say in our collective good are you saying those in the US with health insurance's collective good? there's many collective goods -- some want to be able simply to take their children to the doctor, or themselves, for basic checkups but because we waste ("waste" is my opinion) so many billions of dollars looking for miracles for the elite, millions have no health insurance at all. who's collective good is that?

and, no, you need to study animal experimentation methods a little closer yourself -- go back to school, as you say. even the NIH, the largest funder of animal experiments in this country regularly rebukes researchers for wasting taxpayers' monies on experiments that serve no practical purpose whatsover -- that's why they have review boards and don't hand out money to any kook or sadist with an idea that involves animals. so, you can use words like *always* and emphasize them or whatever, but that doesn't make it true. by your logic, people would learn something valuable by throwing thousands of dogs off cliffs or smashing millions of their heads in with sledgehammers, but contrary to your assertion, even the pro-vivisection NIH would disagree with you.

calling names doesn't make your point any stronger, neither does painting the world in stark blacks and whites

"sick, twisted, evil fanatics from interfering in medical research that will eventually save our lives and prevent our suffering."

You should hang your head in shame for using such abuse against others who are helping innocent creatures.

And you would prevent all disease, would you? There will always be suffering and disease. It may only afflict the poor, but why should you worry about that? I predict that most of this research will benefit the corporate masters and we'll be lucky if any of it gets to people who are most in need.

Pass the fois gras while you're at it.

don't forget, that those who advocate vivisection are the ones running the entire show now -- you are on the winning side, vivisectors, and the NIH doles out billions for research on animals ever single year

the ones who advocate for alternative and more modern (read: stem cells, etc.) and more scientifically relevent to human research are the dissenters

just as meateaters are the dominating force in our society, compared with vegetarians, the vivisectors are the dominators of all medical and corporate research today

and don't confuse opposition to animal research as some flat-earth society -- in the end it will be the pro-vivisection crew that comes off as the 19th century scientific primitives while medical science, and science in general, continues to advance with less cruel non-animal methods

it's almost as if testing on animals excites you

totally agree with you on all points, and I should know better. sorry.

nessie, I guess we'll have to continue this on your site. Of course, I'll get deleted but what the hell...