STOP THE SICK BASTARDS AT CAMBRIDGE FROM OPENING THE PRIMATE LAB...

EMBRACE YOUR FATE

Secondly, mate - "28 Days Later" was shit. Yeah, cos animal welfare/ rights types actually go into biological testing areas and release animals... YEAH. COS WE'RE ALL THICK AS SHIT. If you knew anything you'd know that there's only one UK case of a primate escaping into the wild and that was from Huntingdon Life Sciences themselves whose incompetent wankers actually let the thing out. "28 Days Later" was also factually incorrect as testing on chimps and great apes is now illegal in Europe despite the pro-vivisection mobs best attempts to say otherwise.

As for the photo - I don't find that funny and presume it comes from the mind of someone very sick or very ill-educated on this.

Twistin my melon, man

Please stop posting pics of monkeys being tested on.

x-post

*chuckle*

Also, things I find hugely upsetting include assuming someone has a "clear mental imbalance" when what they have is a twisted way of dealing with your posts. If that upsets or offends you, bear that feeling in mind when you jump in with your tuppenceworth elsewhere.

P.S. i wasn't taking the piss out of a epileptics.

also, i am afraid that on a public forum you are going to have to deal with freedom of speech, and people posting things that you find offensive or disapprove of.

C-man

Well, as ever with animal rights types, I get a shiver from that statement -- they key word is 'even,' of course. As is well known, some 'activists' regard mere words as not enough and are quite willing to take their protest further into the realms of human-on-human violence. I'm not tarring Calum with that brush, but, why the word 'even'?

hahaha, as if he didn't know!

If someone posted an anti-Nazi thread and assholes posted pics of concentration camps i think it might upset, you know...

P.S. Human on human violence? I wouldn't have anything to with that, but from what I've seen of undercover footage in these labs I don't exactly cry when I hear Brian Cass has been given a good thump to the head.

also, can any parellels be drawn between those who are violent to vivisectionists in the name of saving animal life, and those who are violent to abortionist in the name of saving unborn life?

Plus, discussion of issues like this (eg vegetarianism, smoking vs non-smoking, stuff that gets ppl riled up)rarely goes well on mail lists and bbs'. The same freedom from real-life consequence that allows you to diss ppl w/o getting smacked down on the floor, as you know would happen irl, is what allows ppl to take the piss when you try to tell people what to think. I dunno, it seems obvious to me.

Calling people 'assholes' or whatever is considerably less effective. The fact that most people here ARE probably against animal testing and you have managed to turn it into a massive struggle on your part is rather amusing.

erm, i didn't just mean on this thread calz. i meant that your posting history has made a serious discussion on this topic impossible - and the only way to fix that is to be nicer on ILX for a consistent period of time.

"History of my posts shows I'm DEADLY SERIOUS about this topic."

indeed. and so people are delighted to have something they can upset you with (I'm not particularly bothered).

again, i'm not having a go at you, i'm just saying.

This is a topic that deserves better than C-Man's inflamed rhetoric, and for that matter, the faux nonchalance of others who are probably only reacting to C-Man anyway.

Anyone up for it?

unfortunately it makes it impossible to talk about subjects like this in public on ilx.

But, sure, fire ahead if you want to take this one seriously, it would be welcome.

this kind of reminds me of that for some reason

We shoot the first monkey and realize that we could also shoot C-Man.

1. Animal rights people have a terrible PR problem
2. Partly their own fault
3. Partly a media conspiracy?
4. Concern for animals does not necessarily = misanthropy
5. Although some people hold deep suspicions in this regard
6. Some animal rights activists are zealots
7. Jane Goodall is not a zealot
8. How do we know the difference?
9. What do you do with an apartment full of vicious and huge "liberated" lab rats in cages?
10. Imagine a 2 year jail sentence (Holloway) for a 30 year old single mom (4 yr old daughter at the time), no prior record, and all she did was drive a van (the occupants of which caused some criminal damage and burglary).
11. The use of non-human animals by human animals is ubiquitous
12. What is "fair" and what is flagrantly "unfair" about this?
13. Does smashing a concrete block into rhesus monkey's heads in the interest of brain injury research constitute "fair"?
14. Does a one-time hypothetical excruciatingly painful experiment on one animal if it had an extremely high probability of relieving the pain and suffering of millions of humans constitute "fair"? Or acceptable?
15. What if said experiment was on a human?
16. What if said human was Hitler or, I dunno, Ted Bundy or someone?
17. Aside from our natural (probably biological and cultural) prejudices, what is it intrinsically about humans that makes their moral weight that much heavier in these equations?

that makes him an ever MORE awesome clobber roller monkey!

Human beings define morality.

I am a blatant speciesist.

Ha, yes, I think we all are. But as a species, our bloodthirstyness is (hopefully) balanced by empathy and compassion, so...

(Nick, what was his attitude on the bestiality thread?)

1. Animal rights people have a terrible PR problem

Hmm, I'm not so sure about this one. It really comes down to the media, the media likes a good sensationalist story so rather than focus on the good that is done by legit organisations such as Animal Aid and the BUAV they'd rather focus on one or two loons who are charged with sending child porn to the house of a Huntingdon Life Sciences employee. I think media coverage is invariably biased, save for some articles that have been written in papers such as The Guardian and The Independent who have been a bit more well informed as to the struggle against vivisection.

2. Partly their own fault
3. Partly a media conspiracy?

I'd say a media conspiracy. The government has fed into people's minds for a long time that anti-animal testing = anti-science and yet many Labour back benchers and also The Lib Dems have voiced their opposition to animal testing.

4. Concern for animals does not necessarily = misanthropy
5. Although some people hold deep suspicions in this regard

I'd agree with this. I once met a vegetarian who told me she though all human beings were shit etc etc - misanthropy exists but due to the mistakes that vivisection has made resulting in real damage to human beings (Philidamide being a perfect example) I've found that the anti-vivisection camp has focused much of its attention on the human wrongs that come from animal experimentation (see also: Hans Reausch and "The Slaughter of the Innocents").

6. Some animal rights activists are zealots
7. Jane Goodall is not a zealot
8. How do we know the difference?

Hmm, well Jane Goodall is very extreme in her viewpoints, and it comes from genuine concern, just as it does with many animal rights/ welfare protesters. I wouldn't say she's a zealot because she is willing to negotiate and use discussion. Some, on the other hand, do not. I have met zealots and argued with them, it's difficult, just as it's difficult arguing with someone who's answer to this is to post pictures of a monkey on roller skates. And the experimenters themselves are zealots and just as extreme - I'd say one extreme gives birth to another...

9. What do you do with an apartment full of vicious and huge "liberated" lab rats in cages?

I don't really think this is the issue as I think you are more than well aware...

10. Imagine a 2 year jail sentence (Holloway) for a 30 year old single mom (4 yr old daughter at the time), no prior record, and all she did was drive a van (the occupants of which caused some criminal damage and burglary).

Yes, I agree - preposterous.

11. The use of non-human animals by human animals is ubiquitous
12. What is "fair" and what is flagrantly "unfair" about this?

Because no one gave us the right to torture animals in surroundings that are 100% different from what their natural surroundings are. It's a terrifying thing for an animal to encounter this, and I think part of what makes us the highest evolved species is our ability to have a conscience and to know what is morally wrong and right. We have the ability to know when something is in pain and we have the ability to emphasise with this/ stop it/ help it. Therefore, I would say we become less human when we tolerate the pain and suffering of other species. To me, that is not what being a human being is about.

13. Does smashing a concrete block into rhesus monkey's heads in the interest of brain injury research constitute "fair"?

No.

14. Does a one-time hypothetical excruciatingly painful experiment on one animal if it had an extremely high probability of relieving the pain and suffering of millions of humans constitute "fair"? Or acceptable?

Perhaps. But it's not one animal, it's millions. India and Africa have seen their population of wild monkeys almost go extinct. Here we are, decades later, millions of monkeys dead, and for what? Where's the cure for cancer? For AIDS? Charities such as Lord Dowling now explicitly state that cancer research can be done with the right funding put into alternatives - which they use. However, the price of a powerful computer and a beagle or a monkey are without comparison. It all comes down to the almighty pound/ dollar and the so called "charity" kingpins that like their bonuses.

15. What if said experiment was on a human?

Again, if it could save millions and it was a one off it's an interesting question, but the question does not stand for me because it's irrelevant. It is not ONE animal. Like the dumb question, "If it was your dad and one monkey could save his life"... well, duh. But my dad actually died of cancer and it is not one monkey, it's millions, and it's fucked up and wrong.

16. What if said human was Hitler or, I dunno, Ted Bundy or someone?

This is daft.

17. Aside from our natural (probably biological and cultural) prejudices, what is it intrinsically about humans that makes their moral weight that much heavier in these equations?

Pain is pain, regardless of the species. There is no different kind of pain. A beagle dog being injected with garden cleaner is feeling the same fucking thing any of you would.

X-post wiv yer man.

bribe the guards at Seaworld, did you?

"£20 gets you half an hour."

"£20 gets you half an hour."

"It was very nice."

I wasn't being facetious about the lab rats. I met that guy. his apartment was stacked with these cages, each of which contained a giant rat from hell. As the last link in an ALF chain (I'm assuming), he had no idea what to do with them. It was kind of funny and disturbing. But a genuine practical problem.

Re: bloodthirstyness. Dan, I was just contrasting that with the better parts of our nature, not actually implying that bloodlust was a part of animal experimentation. Having said that, however, in the stolen video tape from that head injury research, many of the researchers posed with brain injured monkeys, manipulating their limbs to simulate dancing. It was quite disturbing to watch their callousness (interestingly, the theft of this tape was one of the few instances in which a laboratory lost its research grant as a result of animal rights activism).

My own interest in this is that I used to know a number of activists, and it was my girlfriend at the time who received the incredibly harsh jail term. I'm not an activist myself, but it was an eye-opener to see the way the British establishment handled this issue. By nature, I'm a "shades-of-grey" type person, but I do think some pretty awful stuff goes on w/r/t our treatment of other animal species.

The interesting thing is that the people who broke into the lab were tipped off by a janitor and when the people at the science dept. realised what they had in their hands they asked the FBI to track them down as they knew the public should never learn of what was going on...

I think that all vivisection should be banned, it's morally reprehensible.

Yeah, you're probably right in general. But in this particular case, it was pretty much indistinguishable. We shouldn't be naive about these practises, anyway.

C-Man, I don't know enough about alternatives, but vivisection on the face of it sure doesn't make me feel too good. By definition, I imagine most people lie somewhere in between the zealots on both sides, and would welcome some genuine alternatives to using live animals (cell cultures? computer models?).

Also, the rhetoric on both sides needs to simmer down. It hasn't changed one iota since I knew these animal rights activists in the '80s, ffs! And PETA's public image over here is not entirely due to a hostile media spin. Like the ALF, they must share the blame there (i.e./ pic your battles, people).

i also think that berating people for not agreeing with you converts no one. ever.

There are other things apart from this that research is done for, often with great success. Better/safer medications for diabetes, for example - ONES THAT NO LONGER NEED TO USE ANIMAL BYPRODUCT. Funny, that.

Also C-Man, I have only one question whenever anyone brings up this topic - do you eschew ALL pharmaceuticals and other scientific treatments when you are ill because of this stance? If not, please explain how you reconcile being against animals in medical research vs you taking convenient advantage of "someone else" doing so.

Now:

http://www.defeatism.co.uk/chimpinsuit.gif

I don't purchase or use any medication that is from companies that still use animal models if that is what you are asking. And, yes, I've pissed my doctor off royally with that.

P.S. I'll get back to you on the diabetes thing but as far as I know animal models have not been used in many cases of finding cures for this, but I'd need to double check my facts.

What the everloving fuck?

Sincerely, Nate

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3432531.stm

That's what I fnd disturbing.

Best Calum thread ever

28 months later

I actually care more about the fact that amongst an intakle of 11,000 Cambridge University currently contains just 74 black students.
-- Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Monday, January 12, 2004 4:49 PM (3 years ago) Bookmark Link

75 now.

Lewis Hamilton has truly changed the world

black people hate Cambridge.

Massachusetts?

http://www.mtv.com/news/photos/g/grammy06/parties/goodmusic-kanye.jpg

Kanye's printer needs new ink

Best Calum thread ever

-- Dom Passantino, Friday, 6 July 2007 10:11 (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

RONG. Sleeper thread on ilm w/calum/julio epic flamewar or MSP thread (not started by cman admittedly) w/unbelivable stfu-pwnj of cman by ally are better.

The problem with that thread is that although Calum gets pwnd, he gets pwnd by someone advocating MSP as a great band

You may be on shaky ground yourself a bit with that assertion, Dom.

calum never mentioned pazz and jop as far as i'm aware

"If you want to fuck a dolphin mate then be my guest"

LOLOLO

I used jimmy mod's "makes yacking hand motion" thing on a mail list a couple of times a year or so ago and got the smackdown from the list moderator for it, haha.