Research at price which must be paid (From Worcester News)
Get involved! Send your photos, video, news & views by texting WN NEWS to 80360 or e-mail us
Research at price which must be paid
9:15am Wednesday 17th September 2008 in
SIR – Apparently, despite being subject to continual assessments of efficacy and benefit, and despite being conducted under multifarious laws and codes of ethics ensuring rigorous review, the truth is obvious to H Handy (September 8), vivisection is archaic and completely unnecessary.
In saying so, Handy contradicts three independent enquiries in the last five years which all found that animal testing was scientifically sound and worthwhile.
The Nobel Prize for medicine has been awarded to researchers who used animals 71 times in the last 103 years. Is the Nobel Prize committee hellbent on rewarding fruitless and unethical research?
Handy asks us to imagine all the pain that laboratory research animals endure.
Allow me to agree that we must indeed accept this, just as surely as we should thank the veterans of just wars. We should be aware that many of our medicines and medical procedures come to us at a terrible price.
H Handy is right that research animals themselves never (or only very rarely) benefit by the research. However, it is worth pointing out that animal testing has resulted in numerous drugs and procedures which are used routinely by veterinary surgeons.
BOB CHURCHILL, Worcester
Comments(22)
Alan2
says...
6:50pm Wed 17 Sep 08
"Handy asks us to imagine all the pain that laboratory research animals endure.
Allow me to agree that we must indeed accept this, just as surely as we should thank the veterans of just wars. We should be aware that many of our medicines and medical procedures come to us at a terrible price.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,
Churchill is sick - no other word can describe him. Only one with such a distorted, warped and twisted mind could come out with comments like this.
Allow me to agree that we must indeed accept this, just as surely as we should thank the veterans of just wars. We should be aware that many of our medicines and medical procedures come to us at a terrible price.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,
Churchill is sick - no other word can describe him. Only one with such a distorted, warped and twisted mind could come out with comments like this.
CatC
says...
8:26pm Wed 17 Sep 08
Bob Churchill does not identify the three supposedly 'independent' studies to which he refers, however, the three studies to which the pro-vivisection lobby usually refer are -
1) the House of Lords Select Committee report - in fact this was a lay committee, their focus was on legislation, public information and ethics, they certainly did NOT carry out nor attempt the rigorous and exclusively scientific analysis which is required for a valid conclusion.
The cttee did acknowledge though that “all sides of the debate on animal procedures say that animals are highly imperfect models. It will be for the benefit of science, and ultimately of human health, if better methods of research and testing could be developed.”
2) the Animal Procedures Committee report - again this was NOT though an evaluation of the scientific validity of animal experiments, it was a review of the cost-benefit assessment employed during the authorisation of animal experiments.
The APC report concluded that “it is clear that there is a need for more efforts to assess the value of animal toxicity tests in predicting effects in humans”
3) Nuffield Council on Bioethics report - this was a report re the *ethics* of research involving animals...but in light of the evidence given it too concluded that “it would be desirable to undertake further systematic reviews and meta-analyses to evaluate more fully the predictability and transferability of animal models.”
Also, Government itself has admitted that it “has not commissioned or evaluated any formal research on the efficacy of animal experiments and has no plans to do so.”.
Bob Churhill's claims re the Nobel Prize for medicine is an illogical, entirely UNSCIENTIFIC argument, it is an appeal to authority grounded in fallacious reasoning.
The claim re 'war veterans' and 'just wars' is also illogical, the animals in labs have done us no harm and pose no threat to us, our treatment of them is that of tyranical despots against the innocent who have no way at all to defend themselves.
His claim re 'animal testing has resulted in numerous drugs and procedures which are used routinely by veterinary surgeons' is very strange...unless he would similarly support so experimenting on humans in labs for the benefit of other humans.
I urge everyone who is concerned about medical progress and safe/effective treatments for humans to support the call for a genuinely independent, transparent, scientific inquiry into the validity of animal experiments, more detail at -
www.safermedicines.o
rg
1) the House of Lords Select Committee report - in fact this was a lay committee, their focus was on legislation, public information and ethics, they certainly did NOT carry out nor attempt the rigorous and exclusively scientific analysis which is required for a valid conclusion.
The cttee did acknowledge though that “all sides of the debate on animal procedures say that animals are highly imperfect models. It will be for the benefit of science, and ultimately of human health, if better methods of research and testing could be developed.”
2) the Animal Procedures Committee report - again this was NOT though an evaluation of the scientific validity of animal experiments, it was a review of the cost-benefit assessment employed during the authorisation of animal experiments.
The APC report concluded that “it is clear that there is a need for more efforts to assess the value of animal toxicity tests in predicting effects in humans”
3) Nuffield Council on Bioethics report - this was a report re the *ethics* of research involving animals...but in light of the evidence given it too concluded that “it would be desirable to undertake further systematic reviews and meta-analyses to evaluate more fully the predictability and transferability of animal models.”
Also, Government itself has admitted that it “has not commissioned or evaluated any formal research on the efficacy of animal experiments and has no plans to do so.”.
Bob Churhill's claims re the Nobel Prize for medicine is an illogical, entirely UNSCIENTIFIC argument, it is an appeal to authority grounded in fallacious reasoning.
The claim re 'war veterans' and 'just wars' is also illogical, the animals in labs have done us no harm and pose no threat to us, our treatment of them is that of tyranical despots against the innocent who have no way at all to defend themselves.
His claim re 'animal testing has resulted in numerous drugs and procedures which are used routinely by veterinary surgeons' is very strange...unless he would similarly support so experimenting on humans in labs for the benefit of other humans.
I urge everyone who is concerned about medical progress and safe/effective treatments for humans to support the call for a genuinely independent, transparent, scientific inquiry into the validity of animal experiments, more detail at -
www.safermedicines.o
rg
anarchist
says...
9:57pm Wed 17 Sep 08
The site:
www.safermedicines.o
rg
is clearly part of the anti animal testing lobby and should be considered alongside the equivalent pro-animal-testing site at:
http://www.pro-test.
org.uk/
CatC criticises Bob Churchill's reference to Nobel prizes as an unscientific 'appeal to authority' but it is perfectly reasonable and logical to give weight to the scientific judgement of scientists who are clearly world class in their chosen fields.
It is also amusing to note, in view of CatC's dislike of 'appeals to authority', that the safe medicines site has an example of this right on its front page.
www.safermedicines.o
rg
is clearly part of the anti animal testing lobby and should be considered alongside the equivalent pro-animal-testing site at:
http://www.pro-test.
org.uk/
CatC criticises Bob Churchill's reference to Nobel prizes as an unscientific 'appeal to authority' but it is perfectly reasonable and logical to give weight to the scientific judgement of scientists who are clearly world class in their chosen fields.
It is also amusing to note, in view of CatC's dislike of 'appeals to authority', that the safe medicines site has an example of this right on its front page.
Bob Churchill
says...
10:43pm Wed 17 Sep 08
Alan2
I'm not "sick". Rather than spouting insults with no explanation, I at least made an actual argument.
The point was that we often recognise that a "lesser of two evils" is a moral choice, such as - in very specific circumstances - going to war. Another analogy might be that we should remember that each turn of the ignition key brings us closer to ecological disaster, but we cannot afford to completely shut down our infrastructure.
My point is, I accept we should acknowledge the "evil" in a lesser-of-two-evils situation. But it's still ethically legitimate to undertake the lesser of two evils.
CatC,
I agree with Select Committee that "It will be for the benefit of science, and ultimately of human health, if better methods of research and testing could be developed" - but in lieu of those better methods - in the meantime - the ethical choice was clear that we must use what we have or we delay vital research.
In all three reports you claim that science per se was not the focus, only ethics, which you even put in scare quotes at one point. I think "ethics" is a good thing for committees like this to discuss. Science is done by scientists who, by the way, do not normally benefit from fruitless techniques. On an earlier thread you referred to vested interests in vivisection, but aside from animal breeders I can't think what on earth these could be. If vivisection was a futile as you claim, then medical companies wouldn't benefit from carrying it out, would they.
One more point. As Anarchist points out, there's no "appeal to authority" with the reference to Nobel prizes. The point is that Nobel prizes are based on scientific merit and efficacy. No one at Nobel benefits from awarding prizes to bad science.
I'm not "sick". Rather than spouting insults with no explanation, I at least made an actual argument.
The point was that we often recognise that a "lesser of two evils" is a moral choice, such as - in very specific circumstances - going to war. Another analogy might be that we should remember that each turn of the ignition key brings us closer to ecological disaster, but we cannot afford to completely shut down our infrastructure.
My point is, I accept we should acknowledge the "evil" in a lesser-of-two-evils situation. But it's still ethically legitimate to undertake the lesser of two evils.
CatC,
I agree with Select Committee that "It will be for the benefit of science, and ultimately of human health, if better methods of research and testing could be developed" - but in lieu of those better methods - in the meantime - the ethical choice was clear that we must use what we have or we delay vital research.
In all three reports you claim that science per se was not the focus, only ethics, which you even put in scare quotes at one point. I think "ethics" is a good thing for committees like this to discuss. Science is done by scientists who, by the way, do not normally benefit from fruitless techniques. On an earlier thread you referred to vested interests in vivisection, but aside from animal breeders I can't think what on earth these could be. If vivisection was a futile as you claim, then medical companies wouldn't benefit from carrying it out, would they.
One more point. As Anarchist points out, there's no "appeal to authority" with the reference to Nobel prizes. The point is that Nobel prizes are based on scientific merit and efficacy. No one at Nobel benefits from awarding prizes to bad science.
CatC
says...
11:06pm Wed 17 Sep 08
anarchist, as I've explained to you before the two sites are not equivalent, the Safer Medicines case is based on, and explains the, indisputable scientific facts that prove why experiments on other species are not valid for human medical research....
the Pro-test site merely makes statements.
Re Nobel Prizes and your claim "it is perfectly reasonable and logical to give weight to the scientific judgement of scientists who are clearly world class in their chosen fields"...
well no, history shows us the danger of just accepting such 'authority'....and are you saying those who experiment on animals are judging those who experiment on animals?
Re you say an appeal to authority on front page of the Safer Medicines website, don't know to what you refer...let me know...but as I've said Safer Medicines can and do explain the scientific theory and the hard evidence to support the case Against.....
are you willing to tell us any scientific theory/evidence 'for' yet...or do you still insist people should just believe?
the Pro-test site merely makes statements.
Re Nobel Prizes and your claim "it is perfectly reasonable and logical to give weight to the scientific judgement of scientists who are clearly world class in their chosen fields"...
well no, history shows us the danger of just accepting such 'authority'....and are you saying those who experiment on animals are judging those who experiment on animals?
Re you say an appeal to authority on front page of the Safer Medicines website, don't know to what you refer...let me know...but as I've said Safer Medicines can and do explain the scientific theory and the hard evidence to support the case Against.....
are you willing to tell us any scientific theory/evidence 'for' yet...or do you still insist people should just believe?
CatC
says...
12:39am Thu 18 Sep 08
Bob, re "in lieu of those better methods...we must use what we have or we delay vital research." -
It delays progress, and allows unnecessary risks to continue, if you 'use what you have' even when you know what you have simply isn't valid for its intended purpose and is dangerously misleading.
The resources currently being squandered studying other species need to be, must be as a matter or urgency, put into scientific, human-relevant research and individually tailored medicines.
"In all three reports you claim that science per se was not the focus, only ethics, which you even put in scare quotes at one point."
Apologies I used the asterisks for emphasis not to scare :)
"I think "ethics" is a good thing for committees like this to discuss."
Pointless though, without first establishing the scientific validity or not.
"Science is done by scientists who, by the way, do not normally benefit from fruitless techniques."
Vivisection is big, big business though and it isn't 'fruitless' in terms of profits, livelihood, getting grants, etc etc.
"On an earlier thread you referred to vested interests in vivisection, but aside from animal breeders I can't think what on earth these could be...."
Oh where to start! A long list so I'll outline the details on a separate post.
"If vivisection was a futile as you claim, then medical companies wouldn't benefit from carrying it out, would they."
That is not a logical approach to the validity or not but see list on separate post.
"...there's no "appeal to authority" with the reference to Nobel prizes. The point is that Nobel prizes are based on scientific merit and efficacy...."
Who is judging that? People who also experiment on animals? People who don't so it's not their field?
"No one at Nobel benefits from awarding prizes to bad science."
Nominations are sent in to them, animal experiments are deeply ingrained as 'good science' into the establishment mindset.
Anyway, any questions re this or the next post please do ask, happy to discuss.
It delays progress, and allows unnecessary risks to continue, if you 'use what you have' even when you know what you have simply isn't valid for its intended purpose and is dangerously misleading.
The resources currently being squandered studying other species need to be, must be as a matter or urgency, put into scientific, human-relevant research and individually tailored medicines.
"In all three reports you claim that science per se was not the focus, only ethics, which you even put in scare quotes at one point."
Apologies I used the asterisks for emphasis not to scare :)
"I think "ethics" is a good thing for committees like this to discuss."
Pointless though, without first establishing the scientific validity or not.
"Science is done by scientists who, by the way, do not normally benefit from fruitless techniques."
Vivisection is big, big business though and it isn't 'fruitless' in terms of profits, livelihood, getting grants, etc etc.
"On an earlier thread you referred to vested interests in vivisection, but aside from animal breeders I can't think what on earth these could be...."
Oh where to start! A long list so I'll outline the details on a separate post.
"If vivisection was a futile as you claim, then medical companies wouldn't benefit from carrying it out, would they."
That is not a logical approach to the validity or not but see list on separate post.
"...there's no "appeal to authority" with the reference to Nobel prizes. The point is that Nobel prizes are based on scientific merit and efficacy...."
Who is judging that? People who also experiment on animals? People who don't so it's not their field?
"No one at Nobel benefits from awarding prizes to bad science."
Nominations are sent in to them, animal experiments are deeply ingrained as 'good science' into the establishment mindset.
Anyway, any questions re this or the next post please do ask, happy to discuss.
CatC
says...
1:28am Thu 18 Sep 08
Why animal experiments continue...the bottom line is of course money, vivisection is indeed fruitful for all the following but not for human medical research (this is mainly pasted, to save my time)
Many factors perpetuate animal experimentation, the most obvious of which is momentum. The practice is now very engrained and the systems are resistant to change.
Egos are on the line. Scientists who have devoted their entire lives to animal experimentation are reluctant to admit that those methods were useless, much less dangerous.
Some research scientists do not even realize their travesty. They are far removed from patient care. If their investigations are compelling enough, they may never think beyond to question applicability....
Animal experiments fuel the scientific papers they are obliged to write - it's a world of 'publish or perish' - and these result in promotion...
Animal experimentation continues because it is highly profitable. All the following constituencies make money:
scientists, physicians, hospitals, regulation agency bureaucrats, pharmaceutical companies, medical conglomerates, politicians, animal farmers and vendors, lawyers, reporters, and news media, to name a few.
Other companies, whose products may or may not pose human health problems, use animal testing to secure themselves against litigation too - animal experiments are a legal alibi...did everything required by law even though not relevant to humans...
None of these constituencies can afford for the public to lose confidence in the idea that animal testing protects them.
Their interdependency is finely tuned: The more animal experiments the researcher does, the more articles he or she publishes.
The more articles published, the more grant money received. The more grant money, the more money the university or research facility receives.
The more money the university or research facility receives, the less liable big business is and the more products big business can sell.
The more big business sells, the more money for advertising and hence the more compliant is the media.
Anytime animal testing is questioned, there are outcries from many vested quarters. All hasten to shore up their positions and keep clear of litigation...
All the following make money from it too -manufacturers of equipment, food and services relevant to animal experimentation eg cages, racks, tanks, food dishes and water bottles, carts, dollies, and trays to store and move animals,
restraining chairs and restraining devices to hold animals immobile, pain gauges and other measuring equipment, syringes, feeding tubes, and other delivery systems, transport, isolation and test chambers,
self-piercing tags and tattoo machines,
collar monitors, laboratory monitoring and alarm systems, lab planning services,
cage and rack cleansers and service, animal suppliers, animal breeders, and animal dealers....
who of course pay to advertise so the media (journals) again benefit.
Many factors perpetuate animal experimentation, the most obvious of which is momentum. The practice is now very engrained and the systems are resistant to change.
Egos are on the line. Scientists who have devoted their entire lives to animal experimentation are reluctant to admit that those methods were useless, much less dangerous.
Some research scientists do not even realize their travesty. They are far removed from patient care. If their investigations are compelling enough, they may never think beyond to question applicability....
Animal experiments fuel the scientific papers they are obliged to write - it's a world of 'publish or perish' - and these result in promotion...
Animal experimentation continues because it is highly profitable. All the following constituencies make money:
scientists, physicians, hospitals, regulation agency bureaucrats, pharmaceutical companies, medical conglomerates, politicians, animal farmers and vendors, lawyers, reporters, and news media, to name a few.
Other companies, whose products may or may not pose human health problems, use animal testing to secure themselves against litigation too - animal experiments are a legal alibi...did everything required by law even though not relevant to humans...
None of these constituencies can afford for the public to lose confidence in the idea that animal testing protects them.
Their interdependency is finely tuned: The more animal experiments the researcher does, the more articles he or she publishes.
The more articles published, the more grant money received. The more grant money, the more money the university or research facility receives.
The more money the university or research facility receives, the less liable big business is and the more products big business can sell.
The more big business sells, the more money for advertising and hence the more compliant is the media.
Anytime animal testing is questioned, there are outcries from many vested quarters. All hasten to shore up their positions and keep clear of litigation...
All the following make money from it too -manufacturers of equipment, food and services relevant to animal experimentation eg cages, racks, tanks, food dishes and water bottles, carts, dollies, and trays to store and move animals,
restraining chairs and restraining devices to hold animals immobile, pain gauges and other measuring equipment, syringes, feeding tubes, and other delivery systems, transport, isolation and test chambers,
self-piercing tags and tattoo machines,
collar monitors, laboratory monitoring and alarm systems, lab planning services,
cage and rack cleansers and service, animal suppliers, animal breeders, and animal dealers....
who of course pay to advertise so the media (journals) again benefit.
Alan2
says...
10:34am Thu 18 Sep 08
Mr Churchill, I would not argue/debate with you. As for insults, so be it. I see you as a nasty, militant atheist whos'e views, if you had a shred of decency would be kept to yourself. You choose to broadcast them and therefore, you leave yourself wide open to the vilification of decent people. And please don't try and divorce your atheism from your views on science, animal experiments and the rest of your (by decent standards) extreme views.
They all go hand in hand.
They all go hand in hand.
anarchist
says...
4:19pm Thu 18 Sep 08
CatC
"anarchist, as I've explained to you before the two sites are not equivalent..."
You are evidently in the camp that believes that saying something often enough will make it true.
One site presents the pro animal testing case and the other the anti-animal testing case. At least I give readers a chance to assess both sides of the argument by giving both site addresses whereas you only ever give the address of the site that is aligned with your own personal opinions on the matter.
But I recommend that people who want to to take a more balanced look at the evidence should go to the Human Genome site run by the Wellcome Trust (a charity that funds medical research) at:
http://genome.wellco
me.ac.uk/
CatC:
"well no, history shows us the danger of just accepting such 'authority'...."
I wasn't aware that anyone here is 'just accepting' their views. Cerainly not me. But I give their views the considerable weight that their position in science indicates that they have earned.
There are infinitely more dangers in NOT accepting conventional scientific wisdom than there ever are in accepting it. See for example the Darwin Awards at:
http://www.darwinawa
rds.com/
"Re you say an appeal to authority on front page of the Safer Medicines website, don't know to what you refer...let me know..."
In precis: 250 MPs and 83% of GPs agree with us.
CatC:
"are you willing to tell us any scientific theory/evidence 'for' yet...or do you still insist people should just believe?"
I have given you and others the google search terms needed to easily find such evidence.
Furthermore, I am beginning to think you are a robot in parroting this particular appeal since it is only too obvious you will blindly discount any evidence that doesn't support your position. What you are trying to do here is to imply that a failure to respond on your terms should lead onlookers to conclude that evidence in support of animal testing doesn't exist. Fortunately people who watch this site will quickly see through this tactic.
For those who truly are interested, the Wellcome Trust Human Genome site is a good place to start.
By the way, CatC, many who would be happy to see primate and higher animal experiments banned, will perhaps be surprised to find that the anti-testing lobby are seeking to ban experiments with fruit flies, mosquitos and other insects. Is extending a ban this far the established position of the anti-animal testing lobby?
"anarchist, as I've explained to you before the two sites are not equivalent..."
You are evidently in the camp that believes that saying something often enough will make it true.
One site presents the pro animal testing case and the other the anti-animal testing case. At least I give readers a chance to assess both sides of the argument by giving both site addresses whereas you only ever give the address of the site that is aligned with your own personal opinions on the matter.
But I recommend that people who want to to take a more balanced look at the evidence should go to the Human Genome site run by the Wellcome Trust (a charity that funds medical research) at:
http://genome.wellco
me.ac.uk/
CatC:
"well no, history shows us the danger of just accepting such 'authority'...."
I wasn't aware that anyone here is 'just accepting' their views. Cerainly not me. But I give their views the considerable weight that their position in science indicates that they have earned.
There are infinitely more dangers in NOT accepting conventional scientific wisdom than there ever are in accepting it. See for example the Darwin Awards at:
http://www.darwinawa
rds.com/
"Re you say an appeal to authority on front page of the Safer Medicines website, don't know to what you refer...let me know..."
In precis: 250 MPs and 83% of GPs agree with us.
CatC:
"are you willing to tell us any scientific theory/evidence 'for' yet...or do you still insist people should just believe?"
I have given you and others the google search terms needed to easily find such evidence.
Furthermore, I am beginning to think you are a robot in parroting this particular appeal since it is only too obvious you will blindly discount any evidence that doesn't support your position. What you are trying to do here is to imply that a failure to respond on your terms should lead onlookers to conclude that evidence in support of animal testing doesn't exist. Fortunately people who watch this site will quickly see through this tactic.
For those who truly are interested, the Wellcome Trust Human Genome site is a good place to start.
By the way, CatC, many who would be happy to see primate and higher animal experiments banned, will perhaps be surprised to find that the anti-testing lobby are seeking to ban experiments with fruit flies, mosquitos and other insects. Is extending a ban this far the established position of the anti-animal testing lobby?
CatC
says...
12:07am Fri 19 Sep 08
"You are evidently in the camp that believes that saying something often enough will make it true"
Lol - I think that's your line :)
"One site presents the pro animal testing case and the other the anti-animal testing case."
My point though is that Safer Medicines does explain the scientific theory/facts, does make its case, whereas Pro-test does not give any such 'case' it makes statements...
and in case you disagreed with me on that I've invited you to post a link to any scientific theory/case (rather than mere statements) on the Pro-test site...but, again, you have not done so....
"At least I give readers a chance to assess both sides of the argument by giving both site addresses whereas you only ever give the address of the site that is aligned with your own personal opinions on the matter."
I've previously agreed with you that people should Objectively scutinise both sites but anyway the pro-vivisection statements are oft given publicity in the public domain, whereas the scientific case against barely ever gets a hearing...
so people already know the pro-vivisection side but not the scientific case against...just trying to even it up a bit.
"But I recommend that people who want to to take a more balanced look at the evidence should go to the Human Genome site run by the Wellcome Trust (a charity that funds medical research) at:
http://genome.wellco
me.ac.uk/"
We've done this before though, I've previously identified for you why the Wellcome Trust cannot be considered an 'independent' source of information and that it IS part of the pro-vivisection lobby.
"I wasn't aware that anyone here is 'just accepting' their views. Cerainly not me."
Hmmmmm....so IF you are not just accepting their views then why won't you tell us what scientific theory/facts/ evidence underpins Your belief?
"But I give their views the considerable weight that their position in science indicates that they have earned."
Bless.
"There are infinitely more dangers in NOT accepting conventional scientific wisdom than there ever are in accepting it...."
No, there are infinitely more dangers in not objectively scrutinising, in just blindly believing, the 'accepted wisdom'.
" In precis: 250 MPs and 83% of GPs agree with us"
Er no...that isn't an appeal to authority re the scientific case against itself, it actually says Safer Medicines is calling for an 'Independent scientific evaluation of the utility of animal tests for drug safety: something which 250 MPs and 83% of GPs have also called for'.
"I have given you and others the google search terms needed to easily find such evidence."
Oh please! In light of your refusal yet again, the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that You cannot tell us any scientific theory/ evidence 'for', that You do not actually know any scientific case 'for'....of course feel free to enlighten us otherwise.
"Furthermore, I am beginning to think you are a robot in parroting this particular appeal since it is only too obvious you will blindly discount any evidence that doesn't support your position."
Erm...you think I'm a robot since - you claim - I'll 'blindly discount' any evidence I don't like?? Illogical...and - tsk tsk very naughty - a completely false and unfounded accusation against me.
"What you are trying to do here is to imply that a failure to respond on your terms should lead onlookers to conclude that evidence in support of animal testing doesn't exist"
No, you are making another false and unfounded accusation...it's simple enough, I'm asking you a perfectly reasonable question....Why You believe as you do, what scientific theory/facts/ evidence has so convinced You...
I've also invited you to post a link to the Pro-test website where it gives any such scientific theory/facts/evidenc
e to support their claims...again a perfectly reasonable invitation.
"Fortunately people who watch this site will quickly see through this tactic."
The 'tactic' of asking a perfectly reasonable question - Why you believe as you do, what scientific theory/facts/ evidence has so convinced You?
The 'tactic' of inviting you to post a link to any scientific case on the Pro-test website?
I expect they'll easily see through your tactic - making false and unfounded accusations against me to 'justify' your refusal to give straight answers to very simple and entirely reasonable questions/invitation
s :)
Btw, to everyone, happy to explain/discuss the scientific case 'against'...and to discuss any scientific case 'for' (if anyone knows of any such....).
Lol - I think that's your line :)
"One site presents the pro animal testing case and the other the anti-animal testing case."
My point though is that Safer Medicines does explain the scientific theory/facts, does make its case, whereas Pro-test does not give any such 'case' it makes statements...
and in case you disagreed with me on that I've invited you to post a link to any scientific theory/case (rather than mere statements) on the Pro-test site...but, again, you have not done so....
"At least I give readers a chance to assess both sides of the argument by giving both site addresses whereas you only ever give the address of the site that is aligned with your own personal opinions on the matter."
I've previously agreed with you that people should Objectively scutinise both sites but anyway the pro-vivisection statements are oft given publicity in the public domain, whereas the scientific case against barely ever gets a hearing...
so people already know the pro-vivisection side but not the scientific case against...just trying to even it up a bit.
"But I recommend that people who want to to take a more balanced look at the evidence should go to the Human Genome site run by the Wellcome Trust (a charity that funds medical research) at:
http://genome.wellco
me.ac.uk/"
We've done this before though, I've previously identified for you why the Wellcome Trust cannot be considered an 'independent' source of information and that it IS part of the pro-vivisection lobby.
"I wasn't aware that anyone here is 'just accepting' their views. Cerainly not me."
Hmmmmm....so IF you are not just accepting their views then why won't you tell us what scientific theory/facts/ evidence underpins Your belief?
"But I give their views the considerable weight that their position in science indicates that they have earned."
Bless.
"There are infinitely more dangers in NOT accepting conventional scientific wisdom than there ever are in accepting it...."
No, there are infinitely more dangers in not objectively scrutinising, in just blindly believing, the 'accepted wisdom'.
" In precis: 250 MPs and 83% of GPs agree with us"
Er no...that isn't an appeal to authority re the scientific case against itself, it actually says Safer Medicines is calling for an 'Independent scientific evaluation of the utility of animal tests for drug safety: something which 250 MPs and 83% of GPs have also called for'.
"I have given you and others the google search terms needed to easily find such evidence."
Oh please! In light of your refusal yet again, the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that You cannot tell us any scientific theory/ evidence 'for', that You do not actually know any scientific case 'for'....of course feel free to enlighten us otherwise.
"Furthermore, I am beginning to think you are a robot in parroting this particular appeal since it is only too obvious you will blindly discount any evidence that doesn't support your position."
Erm...you think I'm a robot since - you claim - I'll 'blindly discount' any evidence I don't like?? Illogical...and - tsk tsk very naughty - a completely false and unfounded accusation against me.
"What you are trying to do here is to imply that a failure to respond on your terms should lead onlookers to conclude that evidence in support of animal testing doesn't exist"
No, you are making another false and unfounded accusation...it's simple enough, I'm asking you a perfectly reasonable question....Why You believe as you do, what scientific theory/facts/ evidence has so convinced You...
I've also invited you to post a link to the Pro-test website where it gives any such scientific theory/facts/evidenc
e to support their claims...again a perfectly reasonable invitation.
"Fortunately people who watch this site will quickly see through this tactic."
The 'tactic' of asking a perfectly reasonable question - Why you believe as you do, what scientific theory/facts/ evidence has so convinced You?
The 'tactic' of inviting you to post a link to any scientific case on the Pro-test website?
I expect they'll easily see through your tactic - making false and unfounded accusations against me to 'justify' your refusal to give straight answers to very simple and entirely reasonable questions/invitation
s :)
Btw, to everyone, happy to explain/discuss the scientific case 'against'...and to discuss any scientific case 'for' (if anyone knows of any such....).
anarchist
says...
8:25am Fri 19 Sep 08
Anarchist:
" In precis: 250 MPs and 83% of GPs agree with us"
CatC:
Er no...that isn't an appeal to authority ....
It certainly is an appeal to authority regarding your call for yet one more review of the value of animal testing. So it seems that such appeals are acceptable only when they support your position.
CatC:
"No, there are infinitely more dangers in not objectively scrutinising, in just blindly believing, the 'accepted wisdom'."
Wrong. Modern life depends on the established scientific wisdom in many different fields. If everyone either blindly rejected such wisdom or personally reviewed it before they became dependent on it, society as we now know it would not exist.
You have made it clear that you wish to see an animal testing ban that covers not only primates and higher animals but also fruit flies, mosquitos and other insects. Do you also want it to cover _all_ living species except plants?
Is the call for a ban that is as extensive as this the established position of the anti-animal testing lobby?
" In precis: 250 MPs and 83% of GPs agree with us"
CatC:
Er no...that isn't an appeal to authority ....
It certainly is an appeal to authority regarding your call for yet one more review of the value of animal testing. So it seems that such appeals are acceptable only when they support your position.
CatC:
"No, there are infinitely more dangers in not objectively scrutinising, in just blindly believing, the 'accepted wisdom'."
Wrong. Modern life depends on the established scientific wisdom in many different fields. If everyone either blindly rejected such wisdom or personally reviewed it before they became dependent on it, society as we now know it would not exist.
You have made it clear that you wish to see an animal testing ban that covers not only primates and higher animals but also fruit flies, mosquitos and other insects. Do you also want it to cover _all_ living species except plants?
Is the call for a ban that is as extensive as this the established position of the anti-animal testing lobby?
CatC
says...
3:11am Wed 24 Sep 08
"It certainly is an appeal to authority regarding your call for yet one more review of the value of animal testing"
I actually said '...that isn't an appeal to authority re the scientific case against itself...'.
There is a difference between appealing to authority regarding validity (as the pro-vivisection lobby do), and saying...in the face of high profile pro-vivisection claims...that 'MPs and Doctors also support that there should be an independent, transparent, public inquiry into the claimed validity' (as those against on scientific grounds do).
You clearly want people to believe animal experiments are necessary/vital *purely* on the basis of an appeal to authority, BECAUSE it is the 'conventional wisdom'...
whereas Safer Medicines are NOT saying that, they are saying...in the face of high-profile pro-vivisection claims which include attempts to try to discredit Safer Medicines...that others share their concerns as to validity and support there should be an independent, transparent, public inquiry into the validity or not.
I'm sure most people can see that those who Oppose an independent, transparent inquiry into the scientific validity that would put the facts in the public domain are afraid of their claims being so scutinised...while those who are calling for such an inquiry are not.
"Modern life depends on the established scientific wisdom in many different fields. If everyone either blindly rejected such wisdom or personally reviewed it before they became dependent on it, society as we now know it would not exist."
In fact modern life depends on people challenging the 'conventional wisdom'. I'm not saying people should 'blindly reject' I'm saying the hard, scientific evidence shows animal experiments are not valid for human medical research...BUT that I Don't want people to 'blindly' take my word for it and there should be an independent, transparent inquiry so the hard, scientific facts can be in the public domain.
Re all the so-called inquiries the pro-vivisection lobby say have already been carried out...did the pro-vivisection lobby object to any of them?
No they didn't because those reviews were deliberately NOT independent,transpar
ent inquiries into the scientific validity or not of experiments on other species for human medical research....
but when such an inquiry is called for the pro-vivisection lobby do strenuously object...I'm sure people can understand the implications of that.
"You have made it clear...Do you also want it to cover _all_ living species except plants? Is the call for a ban that is as extensive as this the established position of the anti-animal testing lobby?"
Not claiming to be the spokesperson for 'the anti-animal-testing lobby' - many are against on moral grounds, many are against on scientific grounds, many on both grounds as I am...
but I'd say that on moral grounds yes where there is biological or rationale-based evidence to support they have sentience, on scientific grounds yes where they are supposed to be 'models' for human medical research.
I actually said '...that isn't an appeal to authority re the scientific case against itself...'.
There is a difference between appealing to authority regarding validity (as the pro-vivisection lobby do), and saying...in the face of high profile pro-vivisection claims...that 'MPs and Doctors also support that there should be an independent, transparent, public inquiry into the claimed validity' (as those against on scientific grounds do).
You clearly want people to believe animal experiments are necessary/vital *purely* on the basis of an appeal to authority, BECAUSE it is the 'conventional wisdom'...
whereas Safer Medicines are NOT saying that, they are saying...in the face of high-profile pro-vivisection claims which include attempts to try to discredit Safer Medicines...that others share their concerns as to validity and support there should be an independent, transparent, public inquiry into the validity or not.
I'm sure most people can see that those who Oppose an independent, transparent inquiry into the scientific validity that would put the facts in the public domain are afraid of their claims being so scutinised...while those who are calling for such an inquiry are not.
"Modern life depends on the established scientific wisdom in many different fields. If everyone either blindly rejected such wisdom or personally reviewed it before they became dependent on it, society as we now know it would not exist."
In fact modern life depends on people challenging the 'conventional wisdom'. I'm not saying people should 'blindly reject' I'm saying the hard, scientific evidence shows animal experiments are not valid for human medical research...BUT that I Don't want people to 'blindly' take my word for it and there should be an independent, transparent inquiry so the hard, scientific facts can be in the public domain.
Re all the so-called inquiries the pro-vivisection lobby say have already been carried out...did the pro-vivisection lobby object to any of them?
No they didn't because those reviews were deliberately NOT independent,transpar
ent inquiries into the scientific validity or not of experiments on other species for human medical research....
but when such an inquiry is called for the pro-vivisection lobby do strenuously object...I'm sure people can understand the implications of that.
"You have made it clear...Do you also want it to cover _all_ living species except plants? Is the call for a ban that is as extensive as this the established position of the anti-animal testing lobby?"
Not claiming to be the spokesperson for 'the anti-animal-testing lobby' - many are against on moral grounds, many are against on scientific grounds, many on both grounds as I am...
but I'd say that on moral grounds yes where there is biological or rationale-based evidence to support they have sentience, on scientific grounds yes where they are supposed to be 'models' for human medical research.
anarchist
says...
10:18am Wed 24 Sep 08
Appeals to authority in different areas are clearly different but this does not change the fact that they are still appeals to authority.
If you reject appeals to authority on principle, as you evidently do, it is then hypocritical to reject only those that don't align with your own position.
You can, of course, accept the principle of appeals to auhority, as I do, but still reject a specific appeal on the basis that the authority of the authority in question is bogus. But this is not the same thing at all.
Modern life depends on the vast majority accepting the conventional scientific wisdom because most people don't have the time, the knowledge or the inclination to question every bit of science on which they depend. They hence have to rely instead on the 'establishment view'.
This is not perfect and it does lead to some mistakes but it is a lot better than allowing the conventional wisdom to be easily overturned by any new and untested theory that come along. The challengers have to make their case and, if they can, the conventional wisdom is then changed.
Modern life is so dependent on science in so many different disciplines that it is simply impossible for any normal human being to do anything other than trust the conventional wisdom in all but the few areas in which they might be in a position to do more than this.
I don't have an established ethical position on the pro/anti animal testing debate because the only real distinction that I can see is between things that are alive and things that are not. Plants react to their environment just as animals do (sentience is a very poorly defined characteristic) so if we are going to ban experiments on animals on ethical grounds, logic suggests that we should also ban experiments on every living things. Moreover, in my view, killing and then eating animals (and even plants) seems pretty traumatic from their point of view.
I might be persuaded that a ban on experimntation on primates and higher animals should be introduced. But any ban extending to insects is not one that i would even consider because I have not even the slightest doubt that our knowledge of genetics and cellular biology has depended, and will continue to depend, in significant measure on experiments with fruit flies.
If you reject appeals to authority on principle, as you evidently do, it is then hypocritical to reject only those that don't align with your own position.
You can, of course, accept the principle of appeals to auhority, as I do, but still reject a specific appeal on the basis that the authority of the authority in question is bogus. But this is not the same thing at all.
Modern life depends on the vast majority accepting the conventional scientific wisdom because most people don't have the time, the knowledge or the inclination to question every bit of science on which they depend. They hence have to rely instead on the 'establishment view'.
This is not perfect and it does lead to some mistakes but it is a lot better than allowing the conventional wisdom to be easily overturned by any new and untested theory that come along. The challengers have to make their case and, if they can, the conventional wisdom is then changed.
Modern life is so dependent on science in so many different disciplines that it is simply impossible for any normal human being to do anything other than trust the conventional wisdom in all but the few areas in which they might be in a position to do more than this.
I don't have an established ethical position on the pro/anti animal testing debate because the only real distinction that I can see is between things that are alive and things that are not. Plants react to their environment just as animals do (sentience is a very poorly defined characteristic) so if we are going to ban experiments on animals on ethical grounds, logic suggests that we should also ban experiments on every living things. Moreover, in my view, killing and then eating animals (and even plants) seems pretty traumatic from their point of view.
I might be persuaded that a ban on experimntation on primates and higher animals should be introduced. But any ban extending to insects is not one that i would even consider because I have not even the slightest doubt that our knowledge of genetics and cellular biology has depended, and will continue to depend, in significant measure on experiments with fruit flies.
CatC
says...
3:01am Sat 27 Sep 08
"...If you reject appeals to authority on principle, as you evidently do, it is then hypocritical to reject only those that don't align with your own position..."
There is though a great imbalance between the 'power' of the opposing sides. The pro-vivisection lobby orchestrated a campaign to thwart the call for the inquiry by trying to discredit Safer Medicines...
the pro-vivisection lobby endeavour to portray anyone against as animal rights 'extremists' or liars etc....so in that context, against that background, it is entirely reasonable for Safer Medicines to let the public know the level of support there is for an independent, transparent, public inquiry into the scientific validity.
I appreciate you don't agree but there IS a huge difference between saying 'just believe it is vital because x says it is' and saying 'x supports there should be an independent, transparent, public inquiry into whether it is or isn't vital'...
but tbh I am not bothered if people ignore that others are too calling for an independent, transparent, public inquiry, as I hope they will understand themselves WHY there NEEDS to be such an inquiry and support the call for same regardless of who supports it or which 'side' is calling for it.
"Modern life depends on the vast majority accepting the conventional scientific wisdom because most people don't have the time...They hence have to rely instead on the 'establishment view'."
Modern life in facts depends on people challenging the conventional wisdom, otherwise we'd all still believe Earth is the centre of the universe, the planet is flat, etc etc etc etc.
In modern days of course people don't have to rely on the 'establishment view', they can hear other views too, easily find and check information, and consider the merits for themselves.
"This is not perfect...a lot better than allowing the conventional wisdom to be easily overturned by any new and untested theory that come along. The challengers have to make their case and, if they can, the conventional wisdom is then changed."
Your claim re 'easily overturned' is a somewhat wild exaggeration, of course new theories do not so easily overturn the old, however - as history very clearly shows us - the 'establishment' do not listen with open minds to new theories...
instead those who challenge the 'conventional wisdom' - and therefore threaten the status/power of those who have been preaching the conventional wisdom - are ignored, then personally ridiculed, vilified and silenced....
as history shows us, the 'establishment' protects the status quo regardless of scientific facts, logic or reason.
This is exactly what is happening re the scientific case against, the pro-vivisection lobby does NOT counter the science or the facts, does not counter the actual case which IS being made, but instead engages in propaganda to personally attack those who are challenging the status quo...
if this was not the case then the pro-vivisection lobby would be Welcoming an independent, transparent, public inquiry into the scientific validity or not...they are not though, they are endeavouring to thwart any such.
"I don't have an established ethical position on the pro/anti animal testing debate because the only real distinction that I can see is between things that are alive and things that are not. Plants react to their environment just as animals do (sentience is a very poorly defined characteristic)"
I'm surprised that is the only distinction you can see but if it genuinely is then presumably you support so experimenting on humans too?
"so if we are going to ban experiments on animals on ethical grounds, logic suggests that we should also ban experiments on every living things."
Even IF that was the only distinction, which of course it is not, the moral imperative would be to include as many as possible within the circle of compassion.
"Moreover, in my view, killing and then eating animals (and even plants) seems pretty traumatic from their point of view."
So...you are vegan then? I think you are engaging in the old pro-vivisection tactic of trying to divert from discussing the scientific arguments ...I'd prefer to stay on topic and discuss the scientific case.
"I might be persuaded that a ban on experimntation on primates and higher animals should be introduced"
Hmmmm....a couple of sentences ago you said "the only real distinction that I can see is between things that are alive and things that are not." !
"But any ban extending to insects is not one that i would even consider ....experiments with fruit flies".
We need scientific, human-relevant medical research that acknowledges and encompasses our current knowledge of biology and genetics...
I have not even the slightest doubt that fruit flies are NOT just very, very small humans :)
So...do you support the call for an independent, transparent, public inquiry into the scientific validity or not?
There is though a great imbalance between the 'power' of the opposing sides. The pro-vivisection lobby orchestrated a campaign to thwart the call for the inquiry by trying to discredit Safer Medicines...
the pro-vivisection lobby endeavour to portray anyone against as animal rights 'extremists' or liars etc....so in that context, against that background, it is entirely reasonable for Safer Medicines to let the public know the level of support there is for an independent, transparent, public inquiry into the scientific validity.
I appreciate you don't agree but there IS a huge difference between saying 'just believe it is vital because x says it is' and saying 'x supports there should be an independent, transparent, public inquiry into whether it is or isn't vital'...
but tbh I am not bothered if people ignore that others are too calling for an independent, transparent, public inquiry, as I hope they will understand themselves WHY there NEEDS to be such an inquiry and support the call for same regardless of who supports it or which 'side' is calling for it.
"Modern life depends on the vast majority accepting the conventional scientific wisdom because most people don't have the time...They hence have to rely instead on the 'establishment view'."
Modern life in facts depends on people challenging the conventional wisdom, otherwise we'd all still believe Earth is the centre of the universe, the planet is flat, etc etc etc etc.
In modern days of course people don't have to rely on the 'establishment view', they can hear other views too, easily find and check information, and consider the merits for themselves.
"This is not perfect...a lot better than allowing the conventional wisdom to be easily overturned by any new and untested theory that come along. The challengers have to make their case and, if they can, the conventional wisdom is then changed."
Your claim re 'easily overturned' is a somewhat wild exaggeration, of course new theories do not so easily overturn the old, however - as history very clearly shows us - the 'establishment' do not listen with open minds to new theories...
instead those who challenge the 'conventional wisdom' - and therefore threaten the status/power of those who have been preaching the conventional wisdom - are ignored, then personally ridiculed, vilified and silenced....
as history shows us, the 'establishment' protects the status quo regardless of scientific facts, logic or reason.
This is exactly what is happening re the scientific case against, the pro-vivisection lobby does NOT counter the science or the facts, does not counter the actual case which IS being made, but instead engages in propaganda to personally attack those who are challenging the status quo...
if this was not the case then the pro-vivisection lobby would be Welcoming an independent, transparent, public inquiry into the scientific validity or not...they are not though, they are endeavouring to thwart any such.
"I don't have an established ethical position on the pro/anti animal testing debate because the only real distinction that I can see is between things that are alive and things that are not. Plants react to their environment just as animals do (sentience is a very poorly defined characteristic)"
I'm surprised that is the only distinction you can see but if it genuinely is then presumably you support so experimenting on humans too?
"so if we are going to ban experiments on animals on ethical grounds, logic suggests that we should also ban experiments on every living things."
Even IF that was the only distinction, which of course it is not, the moral imperative would be to include as many as possible within the circle of compassion.
"Moreover, in my view, killing and then eating animals (and even plants) seems pretty traumatic from their point of view."
So...you are vegan then? I think you are engaging in the old pro-vivisection tactic of trying to divert from discussing the scientific arguments ...I'd prefer to stay on topic and discuss the scientific case.
"I might be persuaded that a ban on experimntation on primates and higher animals should be introduced"
Hmmmm....a couple of sentences ago you said "the only real distinction that I can see is between things that are alive and things that are not." !
"But any ban extending to insects is not one that i would even consider ....experiments with fruit flies".
We need scientific, human-relevant medical research that acknowledges and encompasses our current knowledge of biology and genetics...
I have not even the slightest doubt that fruit flies are NOT just very, very small humans :)
So...do you support the call for an independent, transparent, public inquiry into the scientific validity or not?
anarchist
says...
10:32am Sat 27 Sep 08
CatC:
"I'm surprised that is the only distinction you can see."
In the context of deciding on the ETHICS of experimenting on living species, I don't see any reason to draw the line at some arbitrary point in the hierarchy of living things on the basis of some ill defined characteristic such as 'sentience'. If, or when, we find some meaningful, well understood, clearly defined and accurately measurable characteristic that allows living things to be divided into those that can ETHICALLY be experimented on and those that cannot, I might then change my position.
But this does NOT mean that I don't take a position on OTHER grounds. So I am not a vegan. And, in an appropriate context, yes, I do support some types of experiments on human subjects.
Anarchist:
"Moreover, in my view, killing and then eating animals (and even plants) seems pretty traumatic from their point of view."
CatC:
"So...you are vegan then? I think you are engaging in the old pro-vivisection tactic of trying to divert from discussion ..."
No. I am setting out why I don't take an ETHICAL position on animal experimentation because I feel that an ethical position on this would also require that I reject the many other ways in which human beings EXPLOIT other species for our own benefit.
Anarchist:
"I might be persuaded that a ban on experimntation on primates and higher animals should be introduced"
CatC:
Hmmmm....a couple of sentences ago you said "the only real distinction that I can see is between things that are alive and things that are not." !
You seem to have forgotten that I said this in the context of my ETHICAL position. The fact that I don't take an ethical position does not mean that I don't take a position on other grounds.
CatC:
"So...do you support the call for an independent, transparent, public inquiry into the scientific validity or not?"
No, because I am happy with the current position and with the evidence on which this position is based. I also consider the 'safer medicines' campaign is just the anti animal testing lobby hiding behind a cloak of apparent impartiality. I found this annoying as I went there in the hope that it would be impartial.
In my view, there would be value in an overt anti animal testing web site that: (a) clearly and openly represents the anti animal testing case, and (b) definitively and explicitely disassociates itself from animal rights extremists. I have not spent a long time looking for such a site because, when I do a google search on this, it is the extremist sites that immediately show up. Is there such a site? I would certainly look at what it says if there is one.
"I'm surprised that is the only distinction you can see."
In the context of deciding on the ETHICS of experimenting on living species, I don't see any reason to draw the line at some arbitrary point in the hierarchy of living things on the basis of some ill defined characteristic such as 'sentience'. If, or when, we find some meaningful, well understood, clearly defined and accurately measurable characteristic that allows living things to be divided into those that can ETHICALLY be experimented on and those that cannot, I might then change my position.
But this does NOT mean that I don't take a position on OTHER grounds. So I am not a vegan. And, in an appropriate context, yes, I do support some types of experiments on human subjects.
Anarchist:
"Moreover, in my view, killing and then eating animals (and even plants) seems pretty traumatic from their point of view."
CatC:
"So...you are vegan then? I think you are engaging in the old pro-vivisection tactic of trying to divert from discussion ..."
No. I am setting out why I don't take an ETHICAL position on animal experimentation because I feel that an ethical position on this would also require that I reject the many other ways in which human beings EXPLOIT other species for our own benefit.
Anarchist:
"I might be persuaded that a ban on experimntation on primates and higher animals should be introduced"
CatC:
Hmmmm....a couple of sentences ago you said "the only real distinction that I can see is between things that are alive and things that are not." !
You seem to have forgotten that I said this in the context of my ETHICAL position. The fact that I don't take an ethical position does not mean that I don't take a position on other grounds.
CatC:
"So...do you support the call for an independent, transparent, public inquiry into the scientific validity or not?"
No, because I am happy with the current position and with the evidence on which this position is based. I also consider the 'safer medicines' campaign is just the anti animal testing lobby hiding behind a cloak of apparent impartiality. I found this annoying as I went there in the hope that it would be impartial.
In my view, there would be value in an overt anti animal testing web site that: (a) clearly and openly represents the anti animal testing case, and (b) definitively and explicitely disassociates itself from animal rights extremists. I have not spent a long time looking for such a site because, when I do a google search on this, it is the extremist sites that immediately show up. Is there such a site? I would certainly look at what it says if there is one.
CatC
says...
9:42pm Sun 28 Sep 08
I am very much confused by your post anarchist, perhaps you would clarify re the following -
You say "In the context of deciding on the ETHICS of experimenting on living species, I don't see any reason to draw the line at some arbitrary point in the hierarchy of living things on the basis of some ill defined characteristic such as 'sentience'."
So, then, as (from the above) it wasn't ethics you were considering when you previously said 'I might be persuaded that a ban on experimntation on primates and higher animals should be introduced' -what exactly might so persaude you?
You say "If, or when, we find some meaningful, well understood, clearly defined and accurately measurable characteristic that allows living things to be divided into those that can ETHICALLY be experimented on and those that cannot, I might then change my position."...
but you also say "I do support some types of experiments on human subjects"
These seem to be contradictory positions - given you claim there is a lack of any 'meaningful, well understood, clearly defined and accurately measurable characteristic' upon which to so choose between living species, why exactly don't you support experimenting on humans exactly as you support experimenting on animals and plants?
You say "this does NOT mean that I don't take a position on OTHER grounds."...but don't explain what exactly those other grounds are....would you explain them to us please.
You say you are setting out why you "don't take an ETHICAL position on animal experimentation because I feel that an ethical position on this would also require that I reject the many other ways in which human beings EXPLOIT other species for our own benefit."
I'm glad you recognise it is exploitation but given you said you "don't see any reason to draw the line at some arbitrary point in the hierarchy of living things on the basis of some ill defined characteristic such as 'sentience'" etc....why then is it ok to EXPLOIT other species?.....or are you saying it's also ok to similarly so exploit humans?
You say you don't support the call for an independent, transparent, public inquiry because you are "happy with the current position and with the evidence on which this position is based" -
On what actual evidence exactly is 'this position based' though? What exactly is that evidence?
"I also consider the 'safer medicines' campaign is just the anti animal testing lobby hiding behind a cloak of apparent impartiality."
Lol - you've done exactly what I said (in my post of 27 September) always happens ie 'the pro-vivisection lobby endeavour to portray anyone against as animal rights 'extremists' or liars etc'...
anyway, Safer Medicines is indeed an 'anti-animal-testing lobby' - Safer Medicines IS against on scientific grounds. So, not hiding anything nor pretending to be impartial on the issue...to the contrary, it explains WHY animal testing ISN'T valid for humans and is challenging the 'conventional wisdom' using scientific facts, rationale and evidence.
Further, a simple point but one that seems to need saying - it matters not even IF Safer Medicines was some 'extremist' group...which it is NOT but IF...because, as always whatever the issue, what matters is the actual arguments, the actual case, scientific facts etc, being made....
as I've said the pro-vivisection lobby doesn't address the actual scientific anti arguments, doesn't ever counter the scientific anti facts etc....all it can do is make personal attacks, 'animal rights extremists', liars etc....and that that is all the pro-vivisection lobby can do says it all!
"I found this annoying as I went there in the hope that it would be impartial."
You must have been absolutely fuming when you went to the Pro-test site then :) As I've said, Safer Medicines IS an anti-animal-testing group on scientific grounds and it is explained WHY it is, using scientific facts, rational and evidence to explain the case against.
"there would be value in an overt anti animal testing web site that: (a) clearly and openly represents the anti animal testing case"
Lol - try www.safermedicines.o
rg then - it IS an overt anti-animal-testing webside that clearly and openly represents the anti-animal-testing case using scientific facts, rationale and evidence.
"and (b) definitively and explicitely disassociates itself from animal rights extremists"
Why though? Do you think that would magically determine the truth or not of what is being said?
Whether anyone does or not disassociate from anyone else simply does NOT magically determine the truth or not of what they are saying!
This is simple logic, very basic logic, it is the actual case being made, the arguments themselves that matter...not whom they associate or disassociate with/from.
"I have not spent a long time looking for such a site because, when I do a google search on this, it is the extremist sites that immediately show up."
Oh really...'extremists
' eh?...such as Pro-test and RDS?
"Is there such a site? I would certainly look at what it says if there is one."
There are professionals' groups against on scientific grounds in many countries, however, it is entirely irrational of you to just close your mind to anything said by Safer Medicines - why don't you *objectively* consider the case/arguments being made...that is the logical and proper approach.
I'm happy to discuss any of the case/arguments with you if there are any facts/points you dispute or don't understand.
www.safermedicines.o
rg
You say "In the context of deciding on the ETHICS of experimenting on living species, I don't see any reason to draw the line at some arbitrary point in the hierarchy of living things on the basis of some ill defined characteristic such as 'sentience'."
So, then, as (from the above) it wasn't ethics you were considering when you previously said 'I might be persuaded that a ban on experimntation on primates and higher animals should be introduced' -what exactly might so persaude you?
You say "If, or when, we find some meaningful, well understood, clearly defined and accurately measurable characteristic that allows living things to be divided into those that can ETHICALLY be experimented on and those that cannot, I might then change my position."...
but you also say "I do support some types of experiments on human subjects"
These seem to be contradictory positions - given you claim there is a lack of any 'meaningful, well understood, clearly defined and accurately measurable characteristic' upon which to so choose between living species, why exactly don't you support experimenting on humans exactly as you support experimenting on animals and plants?
You say "this does NOT mean that I don't take a position on OTHER grounds."...but don't explain what exactly those other grounds are....would you explain them to us please.
You say you are setting out why you "don't take an ETHICAL position on animal experimentation because I feel that an ethical position on this would also require that I reject the many other ways in which human beings EXPLOIT other species for our own benefit."
I'm glad you recognise it is exploitation but given you said you "don't see any reason to draw the line at some arbitrary point in the hierarchy of living things on the basis of some ill defined characteristic such as 'sentience'" etc....why then is it ok to EXPLOIT other species?.....or are you saying it's also ok to similarly so exploit humans?
You say you don't support the call for an independent, transparent, public inquiry because you are "happy with the current position and with the evidence on which this position is based" -
On what actual evidence exactly is 'this position based' though? What exactly is that evidence?
"I also consider the 'safer medicines' campaign is just the anti animal testing lobby hiding behind a cloak of apparent impartiality."
Lol - you've done exactly what I said (in my post of 27 September) always happens ie 'the pro-vivisection lobby endeavour to portray anyone against as animal rights 'extremists' or liars etc'...
anyway, Safer Medicines is indeed an 'anti-animal-testing lobby' - Safer Medicines IS against on scientific grounds. So, not hiding anything nor pretending to be impartial on the issue...to the contrary, it explains WHY animal testing ISN'T valid for humans and is challenging the 'conventional wisdom' using scientific facts, rationale and evidence.
Further, a simple point but one that seems to need saying - it matters not even IF Safer Medicines was some 'extremist' group...which it is NOT but IF...because, as always whatever the issue, what matters is the actual arguments, the actual case, scientific facts etc, being made....
as I've said the pro-vivisection lobby doesn't address the actual scientific anti arguments, doesn't ever counter the scientific anti facts etc....all it can do is make personal attacks, 'animal rights extremists', liars etc....and that that is all the pro-vivisection lobby can do says it all!
"I found this annoying as I went there in the hope that it would be impartial."
You must have been absolutely fuming when you went to the Pro-test site then :) As I've said, Safer Medicines IS an anti-animal-testing group on scientific grounds and it is explained WHY it is, using scientific facts, rational and evidence to explain the case against.
"there would be value in an overt anti animal testing web site that: (a) clearly and openly represents the anti animal testing case"
Lol - try www.safermedicines.o
rg then - it IS an overt anti-animal-testing webside that clearly and openly represents the anti-animal-testing case using scientific facts, rationale and evidence.
"and (b) definitively and explicitely disassociates itself from animal rights extremists"
Why though? Do you think that would magically determine the truth or not of what is being said?
Whether anyone does or not disassociate from anyone else simply does NOT magically determine the truth or not of what they are saying!
This is simple logic, very basic logic, it is the actual case being made, the arguments themselves that matter...not whom they associate or disassociate with/from.
"I have not spent a long time looking for such a site because, when I do a google search on this, it is the extremist sites that immediately show up."
Oh really...'extremists
' eh?...such as Pro-test and RDS?
"Is there such a site? I would certainly look at what it says if there is one."
There are professionals' groups against on scientific grounds in many countries, however, it is entirely irrational of you to just close your mind to anything said by Safer Medicines - why don't you *objectively* consider the case/arguments being made...that is the logical and proper approach.
I'm happy to discuss any of the case/arguments with you if there are any facts/points you dispute or don't understand.
www.safermedicines.o
rg
anarchist
says...
12:36am Mon 29 Sep 08
I judge each specific case of exploitation on its merits and hence don't accept or reject exploitation when considered in abstract, non specific terms. I judge specific cases on the balance between the pros and cons as I see them.
I am absolutely certain where the pros and cons lie for fruit fly experiments. I am less certain where primates and higher animals are involved.
The ProTest site does not annoy me because, unlike the safer medicines site, it doesn't seek to hide its animal testing stance behind a false cloak of impartiality.
I have read the safer medicines site in detail and I don't accept most of what it says. Don't ask why because we have been round this too many times already and it will hence serve no useful purpose.
I asked if you could point to a web site that: (a) sets out the anti animal testing case, and (b) explicitely rejects the actions of animal rights extremists. It is a pity that you have not been able to do this since it is not hard to do. Here is one for the BUAV:
http://www.buav.org/
index.php
that campaigns against animal testing whilst rejecting animal rights extremism (I have checked this).
In my view it is telling (although entirely predictable) that you would avoid giving an answer to this question.
You and I are free to choose the basis on which we give weight to the views of others. I completely discount the views of animal rights extremists. I also discount the views of those who either condone, or fail to condemn, the violence and criminal intimidation they direct at others who are acting entirely within the law. In contrast I give the BUAV position more weight because of their explicit rejection of violence.
http://genome.wellco
me.ac.uk/
I am absolutely certain where the pros and cons lie for fruit fly experiments. I am less certain where primates and higher animals are involved.
The ProTest site does not annoy me because, unlike the safer medicines site, it doesn't seek to hide its animal testing stance behind a false cloak of impartiality.
I have read the safer medicines site in detail and I don't accept most of what it says. Don't ask why because we have been round this too many times already and it will hence serve no useful purpose.
I asked if you could point to a web site that: (a) sets out the anti animal testing case, and (b) explicitely rejects the actions of animal rights extremists. It is a pity that you have not been able to do this since it is not hard to do. Here is one for the BUAV:
http://www.buav.org/
index.php
that campaigns against animal testing whilst rejecting animal rights extremism (I have checked this).
In my view it is telling (although entirely predictable) that you would avoid giving an answer to this question.
You and I are free to choose the basis on which we give weight to the views of others. I completely discount the views of animal rights extremists. I also discount the views of those who either condone, or fail to condemn, the violence and criminal intimidation they direct at others who are acting entirely within the law. In contrast I give the BUAV position more weight because of their explicit rejection of violence.
http://genome.wellco
me.ac.uk/
CatC
says...
7:59pm Mon 29 Sep 08
"I judge each specific case of exploitation on its merits and hence don't accept or reject exploitation when considered in abstract, non specific terms. I judge specific cases on the balance between the pros and cons as I see them."
Hmmmm....what explotiation of humans do you judge acceptable then?
"I am absolutely certain where the pros and cons lie for fruit fly experiments.
I am less certain where primates and higher animals are involved."
What do you mean by 'higher animals' given you previously claimed that you 'don't see any reason to draw the line at some arbitrary point in the hierarchy of living things on the basis of some ill defined characteristic such as 'sentience'. If, or when, we find some meaningful, well understood, clearly defined and accurately measurable characteristic that allows living things to be divided into those that can ETHICALLY be experimented on and those that cannot..."?
Also, for what reasons exactly are you 'less certain' re primates and higher animals'?
"The ProTest site does not annoy me because, unlike the safer medicines site, it doesn't seek to hide its animal testing stance behind a false cloak of impartiality."
Lol - yet again you stoop to making ad hom attacks on Safer Medicines rather than addressing the actual facts - Safer Medicines does NOT 'hide' its anti-animal-testing stance at all, that's a laughable accusation as even the most cursory look through its site shows.
"I have read the safer medicines site in detail and I don't accept most of what it says"
How very curious then that you accuse Safer Medicines of 'hiding' that it is anti-animal-testing!
"Don't ask why because we have been round this too many times already and it will hence serve no useful purpose."
Lol - don't ask you why you disagree because you will just continue to say you are not going to tell us because everyone must just accept that you are right to disagree without knowing why....you do realise that people will believe you don't answer because you haven't any rational answers?!
"I asked if you could point to a web site that: (a) sets out the anti animal testing case, and (b) explicitely rejects the actions of animal rights extremists. It is a pity that you have not been able to do this since it is not hard to do."
It wasn't that I couldn't though, it was, as I explained, that the truth or not of what is being said is NOT determined by b)....
oh and it was you who claimed not to know of any such site at the end of your post of 27 Sept...however, it seems that you are anyway just engaging in the old pro-vivisection tactic of trying to divert attention by shouting about 'extremists' whenever anyone tries to discuss the scientific validity...
it would be amusing if human suffering from diseases and safe/effective treatments were not a matter of the utmost concern to us all....
while you are playing these games humans are - still, after around 2000 years of experiments on animals - suffering and dying of cancer, stroke etc etc etc.
"In my view it is telling (although entirely predictable) that you would avoid giving an answer to this question."
I didn't 'avoid' answering as above...but anyway are you able to explain why that is your view...or is that top secret too?
"You and I are free to choose the basis on which we give weight to the views of others. I completely discount the views of animal rights extremists."
More fool you then for having such a closed mind that you are unable to objectively consider the merits of the arguments themselves....
we've previously spoken about 'conventional wisdom' and your mindset is exactly the same as those who throughout history refused to listen to any view which, with scientific facts, rationale and evidence, challenged the conventional wisdom of the age...
"I also discount the views of those who either condone, or fail to condemn, the violence and criminal intimidation they direct at others who are acting entirely within the law."
Yet, despite you "don't see any reason to draw the line at some arbitrary point in the hierarchy of living things on the basis of some ill defined characteristic such as 'sentience'", you don't siimilarly condemn the violence being perpetrated against the innocent and defenceless animals in labs nor those who are committing that violence.
"In contrast I give the BUAV position more weight because of their explicit rejection of violence."
Illogical though, I must say it wouldn't be any wonder if you didn't understand the scientific case against when simple logic seemingly escapes you.
According to your reasoning you would have rejected arguments against apartheid purely and simply because they were made by supporters of Nelson Mandela...
and rejected any arguments for women having the vote made by suffragettes.
To those who don't have closed minds and are able to objectively consider arguments please see the Safer Medicines website and support the call for an independent, transparent, public inquiry into the scientific validity or not of animal testing
www.safermedicines.o
rg
Hmmmm....what explotiation of humans do you judge acceptable then?
"I am absolutely certain where the pros and cons lie for fruit fly experiments.
I am less certain where primates and higher animals are involved."
What do you mean by 'higher animals' given you previously claimed that you 'don't see any reason to draw the line at some arbitrary point in the hierarchy of living things on the basis of some ill defined characteristic such as 'sentience'. If, or when, we find some meaningful, well understood, clearly defined and accurately measurable characteristic that allows living things to be divided into those that can ETHICALLY be experimented on and those that cannot..."?
Also, for what reasons exactly are you 'less certain' re primates and higher animals'?
"The ProTest site does not annoy me because, unlike the safer medicines site, it doesn't seek to hide its animal testing stance behind a false cloak of impartiality."
Lol - yet again you stoop to making ad hom attacks on Safer Medicines rather than addressing the actual facts - Safer Medicines does NOT 'hide' its anti-animal-testing stance at all, that's a laughable accusation as even the most cursory look through its site shows.
"I have read the safer medicines site in detail and I don't accept most of what it says"
How very curious then that you accuse Safer Medicines of 'hiding' that it is anti-animal-testing!
"Don't ask why because we have been round this too many times already and it will hence serve no useful purpose."
Lol - don't ask you why you disagree because you will just continue to say you are not going to tell us because everyone must just accept that you are right to disagree without knowing why....you do realise that people will believe you don't answer because you haven't any rational answers?!
"I asked if you could point to a web site that: (a) sets out the anti animal testing case, and (b) explicitely rejects the actions of animal rights extremists. It is a pity that you have not been able to do this since it is not hard to do."
It wasn't that I couldn't though, it was, as I explained, that the truth or not of what is being said is NOT determined by b)....
oh and it was you who claimed not to know of any such site at the end of your post of 27 Sept...however, it seems that you are anyway just engaging in the old pro-vivisection tactic of trying to divert attention by shouting about 'extremists' whenever anyone tries to discuss the scientific validity...
it would be amusing if human suffering from diseases and safe/effective treatments were not a matter of the utmost concern to us all....
while you are playing these games humans are - still, after around 2000 years of experiments on animals - suffering and dying of cancer, stroke etc etc etc.
"In my view it is telling (although entirely predictable) that you would avoid giving an answer to this question."
I didn't 'avoid' answering as above...but anyway are you able to explain why that is your view...or is that top secret too?
"You and I are free to choose the basis on which we give weight to the views of others. I completely discount the views of animal rights extremists."
More fool you then for having such a closed mind that you are unable to objectively consider the merits of the arguments themselves....
we've previously spoken about 'conventional wisdom' and your mindset is exactly the same as those who throughout history refused to listen to any view which, with scientific facts, rationale and evidence, challenged the conventional wisdom of the age...
"I also discount the views of those who either condone, or fail to condemn, the violence and criminal intimidation they direct at others who are acting entirely within the law."
Yet, despite you "don't see any reason to draw the line at some arbitrary point in the hierarchy of living things on the basis of some ill defined characteristic such as 'sentience'", you don't siimilarly condemn the violence being perpetrated against the innocent and defenceless animals in labs nor those who are committing that violence.
"In contrast I give the BUAV position more weight because of their explicit rejection of violence."
Illogical though, I must say it wouldn't be any wonder if you didn't understand the scientific case against when simple logic seemingly escapes you.
According to your reasoning you would have rejected arguments against apartheid purely and simply because they were made by supporters of Nelson Mandela...
and rejected any arguments for women having the vote made by suffragettes.
To those who don't have closed minds and are able to objectively consider arguments please see the Safer Medicines website and support the call for an independent, transparent, public inquiry into the scientific validity or not of animal testing
www.safermedicines.o
rg
anarchist
says...
12:18am Tue 30 Sep 08
CatC:
"Hmmmm....what explotiation of humans do you judge acceptable then?"
In general I would find such exploitation acceptable if it has the informed and freely given consent of the individual(s) being exploited. If people are willing to be exploited (as they often are) it's not for me to stand in their way.
CatC:
"What do you mean by 'higher animals'"
Broadly vertebrates.
CatC:
"Yet again you stoop to making ad hom attacks on."
There is no such thing as an Ad Hominem attack on an inanimate object such as a web site.
CatC:
"oh and it was you who claimed not to know of any such site at the end of your post of 27 Sept."
Wrong. I never once claimed that I didn't know of such a site. What I said was that when I googled for one I didn't find one and only found animal rights extremist sites instead. I then asked you if there was such a site. All of which was accurate and precise.
Anyone in your position who was genuinely interested in ending animal experimentation through entirely non violent means would have immediately given the BUAV web address. But you didn't and I cannot believe that you did not know of it and the importance it attaches to non violence. I have hence drawn my own conclusions from this and I am happy to leave others who are watching this thread to do the same.
CatC:
"More fool you then for having such a closed mind that you are unable to objectively consider the merits of the arguments themselves...."
Ah, now there IS an Ad Hominem attack in all its glory. Always are sure sign of frustration in an argument being lost.
CatC:
"you don't siimilarly condemn the violence being perpetrated against the innocent and defenceless animals in labs nor those who are committing that violence."
I unreservedly condemn any violence against animals that is recognised as such under the laws of the UK. Now its your turn to condemn the unlawful actions of animal rights extremists. I look forward to seeing this but I am not holding my breath.
CatC:
Risible comments about my (unknown to CatC) views on apartheid and votes for women.
Keep going CatC - these Ad Hominem attacks are quite delightful and amusing for someone who claims to want a serious debate.
http://genome.wellco
me.ac.uk/
"Hmmmm....what explotiation of humans do you judge acceptable then?"
In general I would find such exploitation acceptable if it has the informed and freely given consent of the individual(s) being exploited. If people are willing to be exploited (as they often are) it's not for me to stand in their way.
CatC:
"What do you mean by 'higher animals'"
Broadly vertebrates.
CatC:
"Yet again you stoop to making ad hom attacks on."
There is no such thing as an Ad Hominem attack on an inanimate object such as a web site.
CatC:
"oh and it was you who claimed not to know of any such site at the end of your post of 27 Sept."
Wrong. I never once claimed that I didn't know of such a site. What I said was that when I googled for one I didn't find one and only found animal rights extremist sites instead. I then asked you if there was such a site. All of which was accurate and precise.
Anyone in your position who was genuinely interested in ending animal experimentation through entirely non violent means would have immediately given the BUAV web address. But you didn't and I cannot believe that you did not know of it and the importance it attaches to non violence. I have hence drawn my own conclusions from this and I am happy to leave others who are watching this thread to do the same.
CatC:
"More fool you then for having such a closed mind that you are unable to objectively consider the merits of the arguments themselves...."
Ah, now there IS an Ad Hominem attack in all its glory. Always are sure sign of frustration in an argument being lost.
CatC:
"you don't siimilarly condemn the violence being perpetrated against the innocent and defenceless animals in labs nor those who are committing that violence."
I unreservedly condemn any violence against animals that is recognised as such under the laws of the UK. Now its your turn to condemn the unlawful actions of animal rights extremists. I look forward to seeing this but I am not holding my breath.
CatC:
Risible comments about my (unknown to CatC) views on apartheid and votes for women.
Keep going CatC - these Ad Hominem attacks are quite delightful and amusing for someone who claims to want a serious debate.
http://genome.wellco
me.ac.uk/
CatC
says...
1:16am Wed 1 Oct 08
"In general I would find such exploitation acceptable if it has the informed and freely given consent of the individual(s) being exploited."
What?? People who 'consent' to being exploited are those who are not in a position, who are too vulnerable, to refuse.
Oh and the animals, and plants, have not so given any such consent - how is that ok with you given you 'don't see any reason to draw the line at some arbitrary point in the hierarchy of living things on the basis of some ill defined characteristic such as 'sentience''?
"Broadly vertebrates"
Why are they 'higher animals'? Also, you haven't answered re for what reasons exactly are you 'less certain' re primates and higher animals'?
"There is no such thing as an Ad Hominem attack on an inanimate object such as a web site."
I said 'yet again you stoop to making ad hom attacks on Safer Medicines rather than addressing the actual facts'....the website obviously didn't magically create itself.
"I never once claimed that I didn't know of such a site. What I said was that when I googled for one I didn't find one"
Erm......and you also said 'Is there such a site? I would certainly look at what it says if there is one.'.....see, 'if' there is one, indicating you don't know IF there is.
"Anyone in your position who was genuinely interested in ending animal experimentation through entirely non violent means would have immediately given the BUAV web address"
No because I understand that any such stance does NOT magically determine the truth or not of the actual arguments themselves....you either cannot or are pretending you cannot understand what is simple logic.
"But you didn't and I cannot believe that you did not know of it and the importance it attaches to non violence."
Clearly you are engaging in the usual pro-vivisection tactic of trying to divert from the issue of scientific validity...why do that unless you don't actually have any rational arguments.
"I have hence drawn my own conclusions from this and I am happy to leave others who are watching this thread to do the same."
I am confident they are able to understand simple logic and can see that you are trying to divert from the issue of scientific valdity or not.
"Ah, now there IS an Ad Hominem attack in all its glory. Always are sure sign of frustration in an argument being lost."
Lol - you said you 'I completely discount the views of animal rights extremists', I pointed out that is an illogical approach and that, then, you have a closed mind. You lost the argument when you refused to answer entirely reasonable and pertinent questions :)
"I unreservedly condemn any violence against animals that is recognised as such under the laws of the UK."
Violence is violence whether it is legal or not...it might have been 'legal' to beat slaves but it was still violence. The power group legalising violence does not alter the fact it is violence.
"Now its your turn to condemn the unlawful actions of animal rights extremists. I look forward to seeing this but I am not holding my breath"
I'm pleased you didn't hold your breath because I don't - because the 'violence' committed as a RESPONSE by 'animal rights extremists' is utterly insignificant compared to the systematic extreme violence committed against the innocent and defenceless by vivisectors etc for financial gain.
"Risible comments about my (unknown to CatC) views on apartheid and votes for women"
Your selective reading of my posts does you no favours, as you know I didn't say I know your views I said 'According to your reasoning...'.
"Keep going CatC - these Ad Hominem attacks are quite delightful and amusing for someone who claims to want a serious debate."
They are not ad hom attacks though, you are just misrepresenting what I've said to avoid answering my reasonable questions / points.
As for 'seroius debate' I am sure it is clear to everyone that I'm trying to have a serious debate, it is clearly you who refuses to debate the actual issue, hence your refusal to answer questions and trying to divert attention by making illogical claims re 'violence' and 'extremists'...
as I've said, it would be amusing if human suffering from diseases and safe/effective treatments were not a matter of the utmost concern to us all.
www.safermedicines.o
rg
www.drhadwentrust.or
g
What?? People who 'consent' to being exploited are those who are not in a position, who are too vulnerable, to refuse.
Oh and the animals, and plants, have not so given any such consent - how is that ok with you given you 'don't see any reason to draw the line at some arbitrary point in the hierarchy of living things on the basis of some ill defined characteristic such as 'sentience''?
"Broadly vertebrates"
Why are they 'higher animals'? Also, you haven't answered re for what reasons exactly are you 'less certain' re primates and higher animals'?
"There is no such thing as an Ad Hominem attack on an inanimate object such as a web site."
I said 'yet again you stoop to making ad hom attacks on Safer Medicines rather than addressing the actual facts'....the website obviously didn't magically create itself.
"I never once claimed that I didn't know of such a site. What I said was that when I googled for one I didn't find one"
Erm......and you also said 'Is there such a site? I would certainly look at what it says if there is one.'.....see, 'if' there is one, indicating you don't know IF there is.
"Anyone in your position who was genuinely interested in ending animal experimentation through entirely non violent means would have immediately given the BUAV web address"
No because I understand that any such stance does NOT magically determine the truth or not of the actual arguments themselves....you either cannot or are pretending you cannot understand what is simple logic.
"But you didn't and I cannot believe that you did not know of it and the importance it attaches to non violence."
Clearly you are engaging in the usual pro-vivisection tactic of trying to divert from the issue of scientific validity...why do that unless you don't actually have any rational arguments.
"I have hence drawn my own conclusions from this and I am happy to leave others who are watching this thread to do the same."
I am confident they are able to understand simple logic and can see that you are trying to divert from the issue of scientific valdity or not.
"Ah, now there IS an Ad Hominem attack in all its glory. Always are sure sign of frustration in an argument being lost."
Lol - you said you 'I completely discount the views of animal rights extremists', I pointed out that is an illogical approach and that, then, you have a closed mind. You lost the argument when you refused to answer entirely reasonable and pertinent questions :)
"I unreservedly condemn any violence against animals that is recognised as such under the laws of the UK."
Violence is violence whether it is legal or not...it might have been 'legal' to beat slaves but it was still violence. The power group legalising violence does not alter the fact it is violence.
"Now its your turn to condemn the unlawful actions of animal rights extremists. I look forward to seeing this but I am not holding my breath"
I'm pleased you didn't hold your breath because I don't - because the 'violence' committed as a RESPONSE by 'animal rights extremists' is utterly insignificant compared to the systematic extreme violence committed against the innocent and defenceless by vivisectors etc for financial gain.
"Risible comments about my (unknown to CatC) views on apartheid and votes for women"
Your selective reading of my posts does you no favours, as you know I didn't say I know your views I said 'According to your reasoning...'.
"Keep going CatC - these Ad Hominem attacks are quite delightful and amusing for someone who claims to want a serious debate."
They are not ad hom attacks though, you are just misrepresenting what I've said to avoid answering my reasonable questions / points.
As for 'seroius debate' I am sure it is clear to everyone that I'm trying to have a serious debate, it is clearly you who refuses to debate the actual issue, hence your refusal to answer questions and trying to divert attention by making illogical claims re 'violence' and 'extremists'...
as I've said, it would be amusing if human suffering from diseases and safe/effective treatments were not a matter of the utmost concern to us all.
www.safermedicines.o
rg
www.drhadwentrust.or
g
anarchist
says...
8:25am Wed 1 Oct 08
CatC is a person who will not condemn the illegal violence and criminal intimidation conducted by animal rights extremists. She is, at best, a passive supporter of their actions or, at worst, an active animal rights extremist.
Having achieved my objective of exposing her strong sympathies with the mindless violence conducted by animal rights extremists, I will take no further part in this exchange.
Having achieved my objective of exposing her strong sympathies with the mindless violence conducted by animal rights extremists, I will take no further part in this exchange.
CatC
says...
8:37pm Wed 1 Oct 08
"CatC is a person who will not condemn the illegal violence and criminal intimidation conducted by animal rights extremists."
Lol - looks like an admission you've lost the plo...sorry, argument ;)
Ok then....anarchist is a person who will not condemn the ruthless exploitation of, and systematic extreme and lethal violence against, innocent and defenceless sentient individuals.
Further, despite several polite invitations, anarchist has not been able to offer any rationale nor facts whatsoever to support that experimenting on those innocent and defenceless sentient individuals produces results which are valid for humans.
Further still, anarchist is a person who has repeatedly sought to divert from the issue of the scientific validity or not despite that, after around 2000 years of experimenting on animals, humans are still suffering and dying from cancer, heart disease, MS, Parkinsons etc etc...
it seems reasonable to conclude then that anarchist is more interested in simply shouting 'extremist' than in human suffering and safe and effective treatments and cures.
"Having achieved my objective of exposing her strong sympathies with the mindless violence conducted by animal rights extremists, I will take no further part in this exchange."
Ah the usual pro-vivisection lobby tactic of trying to fool the public with fallacious reasoning - in fact, where my, or anyone's, sympathies lie does NOT magically determine the truth or not of scientific rationale and facts.
So, I urge everyone who can follow simple logic and is genuinely concerned about human suffering, medical progress and safe/effective treatments/cures to support the call for an independent, transparent, public inquiry into the scientific valdity or not.
Details re this can be found at -
www.safermedicines.o
rg
Lol - looks like an admission you've lost the plo...sorry, argument ;)
Ok then....anarchist is a person who will not condemn the ruthless exploitation of, and systematic extreme and lethal violence against, innocent and defenceless sentient individuals.
Further, despite several polite invitations, anarchist has not been able to offer any rationale nor facts whatsoever to support that experimenting on those innocent and defenceless sentient individuals produces results which are valid for humans.
Further still, anarchist is a person who has repeatedly sought to divert from the issue of the scientific validity or not despite that, after around 2000 years of experimenting on animals, humans are still suffering and dying from cancer, heart disease, MS, Parkinsons etc etc...
it seems reasonable to conclude then that anarchist is more interested in simply shouting 'extremist' than in human suffering and safe and effective treatments and cures.
"Having achieved my objective of exposing her strong sympathies with the mindless violence conducted by animal rights extremists, I will take no further part in this exchange."
Ah the usual pro-vivisection lobby tactic of trying to fool the public with fallacious reasoning - in fact, where my, or anyone's, sympathies lie does NOT magically determine the truth or not of scientific rationale and facts.
So, I urge everyone who can follow simple logic and is genuinely concerned about human suffering, medical progress and safe/effective treatments/cures to support the call for an independent, transparent, public inquiry into the scientific valdity or not.
Details re this can be found at -
www.safermedicines.o
rg
More Read stories
- I’m not sure National Service is the answer
- Why won’t Government stop price increases?
- It sounds like we had a lucky escape...
- Surely they won’t put price up this much?
- Listen to Labour? You’re having a laugh
- Canon John Davies was perfect gentleman
- Please, let’s have an Englishman this time
- We are lucky to have hospital facilities
- So what advantages would we lose?
- We must do more to protect countryside
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Comment now! Register or sign in below.
Log in with us
Fields marked with * are mandatory.
Or
Log in with