Tony Brett:

This name pops up far more than coincidence.

You are welcome to contribute, but can you do anything positive about the problems you highlight?

Please.

Where are the savvy residents,you know not the gullible fools the OM would like to make believe they all are.

Look at the recent case of the Jewess in the states faking her own hate crimes and you have a modus operandi.

Hi Joe - so how is contacting the Police, the City Coucil (to arrange cleanup), University Security Services and the Oxford Mail, as well as alerting all 160 members of the Neighbourhood Watch I run not doing anything positive about the problems I highlight?

Do you run a neighbourhood watch scheme Joe?

As an amateur sleuth i would,like the police,suspect certain individuals who want to draw attention to their own political objectives.

Tony Brett wrote:
Hi Joe - so how is contacting the Police, the City Coucil (to arrange cleanup), University Security Services and the Oxford Mail, as well as alerting all 160 members of the Neighbourhood Watch I run not doing anything positive about the problems I highlight? Do you run a neighbourhood watch scheme Joe?

Hi Tony,

No I do not control the local Neighbourhood Watch scheme; but my wife does; and I assist in any way that I can.

Including patrols of the village when suspicious activity may be taking place!

The watch scheme works well within our area.

I am sorry to cast doubt as to your ability; but you appear to be against a brick wall.

For all your efforts are you making progress?

Is there a way you could integrate other individuals into into your scheme.

You obviously have contact with the correct authorities.

Again apologies for any slight made against you.

You are doing the best job you can in extenuating circumstances.

Please accept my apologies for using your name in vain!

This apology is most sincere! Good luck for the future!

Hi Mike - not quite sure what point you are making here. I can only think things would be worse without a NHW scheme. Many local people have said how they are pleased to have a sense of community and the last graffiti artists were brought to task very quickly with lots of witness statements from scheme members.

Not quite sure how much more I can do. Are you suggesting I give up?

A timely reminder for our younger readers.

The Neighbourhood watch scheme was a means by which the Police could keep tabs on vigilante ring leaders and their mobs.

It still is but under New Labour the Vigilante mob has been employed as such by local councils.

These are the remnants of the Bolshevik movement that exterminated the Russian royal family and enslaved most of Eurasia for well over half a century.

And in so doing committed serious acts of Genocide and made life a misery for the rest with their perverted policeforce.

This is the model of new labour.

The cold war was fought against those people outside and within the Soviet Union.

After Communism began seriously faltering the Soviet elite aka the Oligarchy transfered the wealth of ex Soviet states to themselves and called it capitalism.

In time they had some of their ill gotten gains seized and they fled those countries.

They fled to nations which would become known as the coalition of the willing and sought revenge against the Russians and Russian interests.

In fact the hatred goes deeper than that it is exhibited by them towards all human beings who they regard as their beasts of burden.


Thus the Soviet would reinvaded Afghanistan with US and Nato troops and then Iraq in a desparate bid to shore up their Occupation of Palestine and to secure power in the nations which had been completely overun by their political faction.

Their motto is by deception do war and they have quite a few ideological adherents in this country who cannot see reason for indoctrination at an early age,indoctrination they are keen you and your children should also enjoy.

"1 animal killed every 4 seconds in british labs."

Yes his name is Tibbs and he's getting mighty cheesed off with it.

Your efforts are very much appreciated in this neighbourhood. Don't be disillusioned by the negative comments.
You can never please all the people all of the time.

Keith

Still give the bunnyhuggers some credit.
They certainly know how not to alienate people!!

You should have seen them in the grocery store today,what a bunch.

If they drive a car anything like they obstrust with trolleys then,hmmm.

The graffiti were gone by 8am this morning. Full marks to Oxford City Council!

What sickens me the most about this Oxford Mail story is that the message on that fence is factually correct. So don't count me amongst the Shoot The Messenger morons posting on here. Their UK animal lab Treblinka world is not one that I and many other compassionate, anti cruelty people want for themselves or their children to live in. And if anyone's to blame for the bad publicity Oxford University's new animal misery experimentation lab is bringing to the City, then look no further than the City's dimwitted councillors who gave it their construction thumbs-up.

And of course comparing rats to Jews in concentration camps is about as offensive as it gets.

Keep it up!!

Norma - the message may be correct but that doesn't change the fact that it is criminal damage to my neighbour's fence.

The people that defaced our fences are not "messengers" they are CRIMINALS.

And this is nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of biomedical research.

I would be very careful with opening your post in the next few days, Tony.

These kind, compaasionate people have been known to target children of their critics with envelopes
laced with razor blades.

Tony, the Oxford Mail invited people's 'Comments' on this story. I gave my, within the law, free speech, take on it. That's all there was to it. And, Tony, you can rest assured that I do not, and never have, condoned the sort of extreme wrongdoing activities the scaremongering Mr Page talked about in that last unhelpful post of his.

End of.

Of course none of them ever do.

Which is why the scum they wholeheartedly secretly support wear balaclavas.

Norma clearly supports this particular bit of activity.

Norma wrote:
Tony, the Oxford Mail invited people's 'Comments' on this story. I gave my, within the law, free speech, take on it. That's all there was to it. And, Tony, you can rest assured that I do not, and never have, condoned the sort of extreme wrongdoing activities the scaremongering Mr Page talked about in that last unhelpful post of his. End of.

Free speech does not give you immunity from criticism or even ridicule in your case.

Alan Page quite rightly pointed out that you compared lab rats to Jews in concentration camps. Perhaps you might like read your history books and try to understand the true nature and purpose of concentration camps like Treblinka. I find your moral equivalence disgusting.

He also quite rightly pointed out that some people within Animal rights organisations have no hesitation in maliciously harming human beings. Now you may have found the statement to be unhelpful but unfortunately for you, it is also true.

Nice comments Alan!

Casual Observer:

Let me educate you and Alan Page as to why animal experimentation labs have been compared to Nazis Germany's Treblinka concentration camp

The Compassionate Vision of Isaac Beshivis Singer - Yiddish writer (1904-91)winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature 1978 -

Treblinka is Everywhere - in the name of science countless innocent creatures are being subjected to cruel experiments, infected with harsh diseases.

What do they know - all these scholars, all these philosophers, all the leaders of the world -about such as you? They have convinced themselves that man, the worst transgressor of all the species, is the crown of creation. All other creatures were created to provide him with food, pelts, to be tormented, exterminated. In relation to them, all people are Nazis; for the animals it is an eternal Treblinka.
____________________


"Atrocities are not less atrocities when they occur in laboratories and are called medical research"

George Bernard Shaw
____________________


I will not be posting any more on this site as I've got better things to do with my time than waste it on poorly educated people like you and Alan Page.

The Very End Of.

Well that makes them highly dubious in their moral equivalences as well then doesn't it?

Mind you the Nazis used to label Jews "rats" so perhaps there is a link.

Dear oh dear another woman going off to have a feeling!!

It is hilarious that is if you dare to ciritcise these various kinds of pseudo radicalism ( the junkies are similar) they get all huffy and puffy and call everybody else ignorant.

Usually of course, they are themselves merely regurgitating some tenth hand opinion they have gleaned from some website.

"Well that makes them highly dubious in their moral equivalences as well then doesn't it?"

Surely you would agree though that far more 'dubious in their moral equvalences' are those who think a bit of paint on fencing warrants greater concern than that innocent and defenceless individuals are being systematically harmed, maimed and killed.

Sue wrote:
"Well that makes them highly dubious in their moral equivalences as well then doesn't it?" Surely you would agree though that far more 'dubious in their moral equvalences' are those who think a bit of paint on fencing warrants greater concern than that innocent and defenceless individuals are being systematically harmed, maimed and killed.

Oh. Is it? What about bricks through windows, common assaults, razor blades through the post?

Are you really going to argue that criminal activity (of any sort) is justified because a load of rats (that would be exterminated anyway more than likely) are experimented on?

I think all moral concerns have gone out of the window if you believe that!!

What about fleas?

Should I start daubing "Murderer!!" on the walls of people who use fly spray?

You are on highly dubious grounds there. I suggest you have a rethink.

"Oh. Is it?"

Sorry not sure to what your question refers, could you elaborate, thanks.

"What about bricks through windows, common assaults, razor blades through the post?"

I'm not seeing your point, are you saying the residents of Reliance Way have experienced same?

"Are you really going to argue that criminal activity (of any sort) is justified because a load of rats (that would be exterminated anyway more than likely) are experimented on?"

You say 'a load of rats' as if they were just inanimate objects but in fact each is a living, breathing, sentient, free-willed individual with the capacity to feel fear, to feel pain and suffer, who has a strong survival instinct...

so I ask you to consider that just because something is legal that does not mean it is morally right, just because someone engages in 'crminal activity' does not mean they are morally wrong...as history shows us.

(Also, rats in labs are not taken from the wild, they are bred to be experimented upon.)

"I think all moral concerns have gone out of the window if you believe that!!"

Why? Each rat is a living, breathing, sentient individual who can feel pain and suffer, who has a strong survival instinct...on what grounds do you exclude them from the circle of compassion?

"What about fleas?"

The self-defence principle applies as with humans.

"Should I start daubing "Murderer!!" on the walls of people who use fly spray?"

Feel free :)

"You are on highly dubious grounds there. I suggest you have a rethink."

For what reason(s) do you think it is to be on highly dubious grounds to view all life as precious, to recognise that each individual's life is their own, to reject 'superior / inferior' ethics?

I used to think that experimenting on animals was an unfortunate but necessary means of providing medical care for people suffering and in pain.

Now the ALF and other bunny huggers have convinced me by digging up corpses of old ladies, setting fire to boathouses, scrawling graffiti on fences in residential areas and wearing llama herding hats, army surplus jackets and home rolled shoes that finding cures for diseases, extending life and discovering scientific breakthroughs should always come second to losing all sense of humour, perspective and common sense and demadning that we stop treating animals as inferiors and let them run free as equals...until they're eaten by a bigger one, obviously.

Sue wrote:
"Oh. Is it?" Sorry not sure to what your question refers, could you elaborate, thanks. "What about bricks through windows, common assaults, razor blades through the post?" I'm not seeing your point, are you saying the residents of Reliance Way have experienced same? "Are you really going to argue that criminal activity (of any sort) is justified because a load of rats (that would be exterminated anyway more than likely) are experimented on?" You say 'a load of rats' as if they were just inanimate objects but in fact each is a living, breathing, sentient, free-willed individual with the capacity to feel fear, to feel pain and suffer, who has a strong survival instinct... so I ask you to consider that just because something is legal that does not mean it is morally right, just because someone engages in 'crminal activity' does not mean they are morally wrong...as history shows us. (Also, rats in labs are not taken from the wild, they are bred to be experimented upon.) "I think all moral concerns have gone out of the window if you believe that!!" Why? Each rat is a living, breathing, sentient individual who can feel pain and suffer, who has a strong survival instinct...on what grounds do you exclude them from the circle of compassion? "What about fleas?" The self-defence principle applies as with humans. "Should I start daubing "Murderer!!" on the walls of people who use fly spray?" Feel free :) "You are on highly dubious grounds there. I suggest you have a rethink." For what reason(s) do you think it is to be on highly dubious grounds to view all life as precious, to recognise that each individual's life is their own, to reject 'superior / inferior' ethics?

You argue that all life is precious but condone the killing of animals like fleas as self defence.

So you deny that each flea is an individual sentient being?And the same applies to flies?

And that if somebody was to target somebody using fly spray they would be morally justified in doing so?

Schopenhauer also demonstrates that plants have a very strong will to live and cites examples to back up his theory. His point is that the only difference between a human being and a grain of wheat is that the human being is more conscious of suffering. Given that, apart from that there are no difference do you believe vegetarianism is wrong and an affront to the rights of plants?

As to whether legal and moral are one and the same? Please explain why you believe it is morally legitimate behaviour to send razor blades through the post to scientists and yet to condone the killing of fleas?

If you were to find a nest of rats or wasps in your house you would let them stay them there? Or an ants nest?

Sorry but as far as hierarchies go if the death of one rat in a lab provides a clue to some disease or other which could benefit thousands of people, then the rat dies. Simple really.

It is interesting though as we can see here the "end justifies the means" mentality at full pelt.

The legal vs moral argument is an interesting one though.
If, for example, somebody was to tie themselves to a bomb and blow up a train with it and their defence was "Well what's a few dozen people compared to the suffering imposed on thousands of Iraqi civilians by the invasion?"

Would that be morally acceptable?

My answer is that morality is a personal subjective thing wheras legality is an objectively defined criteria designed to keep society as a whole functioning.

To try and bypass one by using highly inflationary rhetoric is simply not going to work.

Whether or not the actions of the people involved with the graffiti were moral is up to them, whether they were legal has been defined in law by a consensus.

You argue that all life is precious but condone the killing of animals like fleas as self defence.

Think about it though - were someone to be attacked by a lion, tiger, dog, snake etc the principle of self-defence applies and, as I said, it also applies with humans eg personal attack, war.

So you deny that each flea is an individual sentient being?And the same applies to flies?

As above, the self-defence principle does not equate to lack of sentience etc it is what it says, self-defence...unfor

tunatly the fact is that fleas are parasites ie have to feed on the host to survive, flies are not and will fly outside if a window/door is left open. Obviously it is better to deter in the first place if possible eg garlic, lemon grass.

And that if somebody was to target somebody using fly spray they would be morally justified in doing so?

Calm down, my reply was meant as light-hearted banter while underlining the point...that it is wrong to take another's life when that can be avoided.

Schopenhauer also demonstrates that plants have a very strong will to live and cites examples to back up his theory. His point is that the only difference between a human being and a grain of wheat is that the human being is more conscious of suffering. Given that, apart from that there are no difference do you believe vegetarianism is wrong and an affront to the rights of plants?

The answer lies in your question (conscious)- how we treat others must be based on factors that are morally relevant...

so for example, racism is wrong because the colour of one's skin is not morally relevant, the fact that the individual can suffer is morally relevant...

plants are not sentient, free-willed individuals who can feel pain and suffer, animals are and that is why it is morally wrong to exploit, abuse, torture and kill them simply because we can, because they cannot stop us.

As to whether legal and moral are one and the same? Please explain why you believe it is morally legitimate behaviour to send razor blades through the post to scientists and yet to condone the killing of fleas?

As above and also unless you are a pacifist you already agree the principle...are you a pacifist?

I ask you to consider this - if you saw a vulnerable person being attacked what would you do? Are you against having any armed services, are you against all war?

Do you see? Throughout history the victims of 'might makes right', of 'superior/inferior' ethics, have used violence as a strategy and others have come to their aid via same -eg think of the suffragettes and Mandela.

If you were to find a nest of rats or wasps in your house you would let them stay them there? Or an ants nest?

Rats can be humanely caught, there are such traps on the market, wasps nest for only one year so it would depend on where the nest was, ants don't like vinegar or over-water (hosepipe)-so better to adopt a humane approach but the principle of self-defence of course applies too.

Sorry but as far as hierarchies go if the death of one rat in a lab provides a clue to some disease or other which could benefit thousands of people, then the rat dies. Simple really.

What about the death of one human ditto? Would you accept that?

I would like very much to talk about the scientific case against animal experiments, in a bit of a rush now but I'll post something later tonight and hope we can discuss the issue - including that in the US alone each year around 100,000 people are killed by 'animal tested' drugs

It is interesting though as we can see here the "end justifies the means" mentality at full pelt .

As above, throughout history 'strategic violence' has been used by victims and those who act to save them...and I ask you to consider that the level and scale of violence being perpetrated against the animals in labs etc is of a magnitude never used by ARAs.

The scientific case against animal experiments (for humans)is made by scientists and medical professionals, I've put the basis of the case below -

Each species is defined by its reproductive isolation due to its unique genetic make-up -

this determines all biological activities of individuals of that species, it's why rats are always rats etc -

vivisection is a flawed methology because non-human animals are different not only from humans but also from each other
at the cellular and molecular level...which is where disease occurs -

these immeasurably complex differences mean the results from one species cannot be scientifically/safel

y applied to any other species -

no species can stand as a reliable biological model for another species -

animal testing does not Predict effects in humans -

so, it is never until AFTER testing on the target species (humans) that it can be known whether the experiments on other species did or did not predict effects in the target species -

of course, once such testing has been carried out on humans the results from other species are irrelevant.

Further, the tiny, tiny genetic differences between individuals of the same species determine whether or not a drug will work or harm or kill the individual - a drug that is safe / effective for one human can maim / not work for another human -

it is not the number of similarities that matters, it is the tiny, tiny differences that are crucial.

We need scientific, human-relevant research/testing not the nonsense of vivisection, we need tailored drugs for individuals.

I hope you will consider the above this is such an important issue for us all - happy to discuss any points with you.

"The legal vs moral argument...My answer is that morality is a personal subjective thing wheras legality is an objectively defined criteria designed to keep society as a whole functioning. To try and bypass one by using highly inflationary rhetoric is simply not going to work."

It has worked though, as I was saying re history showing us (eg suffragettes, Mandela) - remembe that laws protected the slave trade, denied women the right to vote, created apartheid, etc etc etc.

So laws are not 'objectively' defined, laws are made by those with power.

"Whether or not the actions of the people involved with the graffiti were moral is up to them, whether they were legal has been defined in law by a consensus."

Laws protect the interests of the powerful, and bear in mind that although animals are forced into our society they have no official representation whatsoever of their interests.

Animals are denied rights for the same reason humans have been and continue to be denied rights - not because of any morally relevant factor but because granting them rights is against the interests of those with the power.

You say morality is a personal objective thing but it is based in logic and consistency...

I have a question I hope you will consider...

what basis is there to exclude animals from the circle of compassion that does not also justify racism, sexism etc?

Sue wrote:
"The legal vs moral argument...My answer is that morality is a personal subjective thing wheras legality is an objectively defined criteria designed to keep society as a whole functioning. To try and bypass one by using highly inflationary rhetoric is simply not going to work." It has worked though, as I was saying re history showing us (eg suffragettes, Mandela) - remembe that laws protected the slave trade, denied women the right to vote, created apartheid, etc etc etc. So laws are not 'objectively' defined, laws are made by those with power. "Whether or not the actions of the people involved with the graffiti were moral is up to them, whether they were legal has been defined in law by a consensus." Laws protect the interests of the powerful, and bear in mind that although animals are forced into our society they have no official representation whatsoever of their interests. Animals are denied rights for the same reason humans have been and continue to be denied rights - not because of any morally relevant factor but because granting them rights is against the interests of those with the power. You say morality is a personal objective thing but it is based in logic and consistency... I have a question I hope you will consider... what basis is there to exclude animals from the circle of compassion that does not also justify racism, sexism etc?

Upon what basis should plants, flowers and vegetables be excluded?

If they are all (like us) merely physical manifestations of a will to exist then we violate their right to exist by eating them.

Whether or not they are sentient is irrelevant.

Quantum physics would have it that everything is composed entirely of photons, incuding sentience.

The argument surrounding womens rights depends on whether you believe the arguments were won through rational debate or through militant action. The same would extend to all single issue factions that have used violence to achieve their aim.

The function of laws is to bid a community. To provide a central point of reference for each member of that society governed by certain criteria.

Of course there will be a certain amount of bias in the laws, druggies and paedophiles clearly feel their interests are affected by "those in power" and will fight bloody hard for their rights as well. Do you believe they BOTH have cases, irrespective of moral concerns?

The governing factor behind any given law is what effect its repeal would have. Laws would not exist if the behaviour they prohibit wasn't harmful to either an individual (skateboarding on railway plaforms) or society in general.

Conversley the prohibition of something which has a track record like animal testing has would be foolhardy.

Given that every individual is biologically unique, you are lucky that ANY medicine works on more than an individual basis. You are still dealing in probablilites whether or not the product is animal tested.

The number of negative effects caused by certain animal tested drugs may be nothing more than an individual's response and nothing to do with the testing process at all.

BREAK

Going back to the flea question,. You argue that, even though they are sentient individuals, their parasitical nature means they can be killed on the grounds of self defence.

So you deny the right to life to a group of animals simply because their interests conflict with yours. A flea is only following its natural instincts and is unaware (innocent) of the fact that their natural desire for food causes discomfort for others. I would have thought that you would hardly choose to discriminate against them on that basis.

However it does raise the topic that if is ok to kill an animal for going against my self interests, then it must also be acceptable to kill an animal to suit my interests ie. food animal research etc. If I have the right to defend my individual rights through killing an animal then I also have the right to kill an animal if I consider that (on the balance of probabilties) its death will benefit mankind in general.

On the sentience of plants, Schopenhauer cites scientific experiments which show that plants do have a degree of sentience in that they are able to respond to stimuli like light, dismemberment etc. If sentience is to be interpreted as awareness and the ability to respond to stimuli then plants are also in the same bracket as man, (to a lesser extent granted) and should be treated accordingly.

According to your terms of reference they are victims of a power imbalance in which those with power have decided that they are fair game for food. In fact if we take your arguments to their logical extreme, their very inability to register a protest at their treatment makes them far more defenceless than any rat. But, of course, such argument would go against the self interest of a group of people, so it should be avoided.

However, as stated above self interest is also served in Animal Labs.

Back on the strategic violence issue. So you defend the right of any minority that feels hard done by by society to take up arms against it. So if a group of militant paedophiles were to adopt similar tactics for the right to bugger 9 year olds you would say "fair play, they are fighting the power for their rights?" or are you going to fall back on some form of "objective" standard that you, otherwise deny the existence of.

"Now we got to sit around at home and watch this thing begin,
But I bet there won't be many left to see it really end,
Cause a fire in the street aint like the fire in the heart,
And in the eyes of all these people don't you know that this could start
On any street in any town, in any state if any clown,
Decides that now's the time to FIGHT for some ideal he thinks is right.
And if a million more agree, there aint no "Great Society" as it applies to you and me." Frank Zappa on the Watts race riots.He accepted there was an issue and opposed the raial discrimination that led to it but held that this kind of behaviour, if it became a general principle, would be harmful to society in the long term and in general. I whole heartedly agree.

Ok over to you.

Sue, Is your real name Norma?

Sue, can I congratulate you for you calm, coherant and intelligent comments. I am sympathetic to your views, but all too often the infuriating, antagonistic ignorance of those in opposition is enough to reduce people to an incoherant gibbering wreck.
Keep it up you're coming across as calm, rational and well informed.

Alan, sentience is morally relevant, in our treatment of others we must consider factors that are morally relelvant.

Everything is made of atoms but that is not morally relevant. Do you believe that plants are sentient, are free-willed and can experience pain and suffering? There is no evidence to support that, to support that plants have minds, and of course they cannot up and move to avoid danger, seek shelter, take evasive action to avoid previously negative experiences, etc etc.

Re suffrage, it wasn't either/or but the combination, it is well-accepted the militant action reinvigorated the movement, and sparked widespread public interest in the cause.

History shows us that polite requests and reasoned arguments for just causes don't hold any sway with those in power when their interests are threatened, rather such are easily ignored...it is because polite, reasoned, legitimate requests are ignored that people are forced into militant action.

A quote from Mandela (Trial 1964) "...the hard facts were that fifty years of non-violence had brought the African people nothing...".

Laws are made by the powerful for the powerful, laws protect the status quo of the time. Laws don't lead moral progression, campaigners do.

Re ‘cases’ Drugs - many aspects re this but briefly / generally, assuming that the moral 'case' is along the lines of individual freedom, there are laws which infringe on same in many areas, however, that is not the same as the law being used to oppress / enslave / kill a (conveniently deemed inferior) group on a purely arbitrary basis, so not a just cause.

Paedophiles - don't know of any moral case, there are two parties involved and any claim to a 'right to sexually abuse children' ignores that there is another party and would be clearly negated by the rights of the other party.

Re purpose of laws, they made by the powerful etc, exist to protect the status quo of the time. We must remember it was not so long ago the law deemed women were property, the powerful making the laws claimed it was 'harmful to society' to let women and non-property-owning men vote...

I like this quote which I feel reflects the situation as regards moral progress -

'strange how people can see injustice throughout all the ages except their own'.

1/2

Alan, sentience is morally relevant, in our treatment of others we must consider factors that are morally relelvant.

Everything is made of atoms but that is not morally relevant. Do you believe that plants are sentient, are free-willed and can experience pain and suffering? There is no evidence to support that, to support that plants have minds, and of course they cannot up and move to avoid danger, seek shelter, take evasive action to avoid previously negative experiences, etc etc.

Re suffrage, it wasn't either/or but the combination and it is well-accepted the militant action reinvigorated the movement, and sparked widespread public interest in the cause.

History shows us that polite requests and reasoned arguments for just causes don't hold any sway with those in power when their interests are threatened, rather such are easily ignored...it is because polite, reasoned, legitimate requests are ignored that people are forced into militant action.

A quote from Mandela (Trial 1964) "...the hard facts were that fifty years of non-violence had brought the African people nothing...".

Laws are made by the powerful for the powerful, laws protect the status quo of the time. Laws don't lead moral progression, campaigners do.

Re ‘cases’ Drugs - many aspects re this but briefly / generally, assuming that the moral 'case' is along the lines of individual freedom, there are laws which infringe on same in many areas, however, that is not the same as the law being used to oppress / enslave / kill a (conveniently deemed inferior) group on a purely arbitrary basis, so not a just cause.

Paedophiles - don't know of any moral case, there are two parties involved and any claim to a 'right to sexually abuse children' ignores that there is another party and would be clearly negated by the rights of the other party.

Re purpose of laws, they made by the powerful etc, exist to protect the status quo of the time. We must remember it was not so long ago the law deemed women were property, the powerful making the laws claimed it was 'harmful to society' to let women and non-property-owning men vote...

I like this quote which I feel reflects the situation as regards moral progress -

'strange how people can see injustice throughout all the ages except their own'.

cont...

(sorry double post!)
cont...

I've taken a very keen interest in the issue of vivisection for several years, it is a matter of documented fact that the track record of animal testing is one of failure - including the thalidomide tragedies.

I urge everyone to read the book 'Sacred Cows and Golden Geese', (R Greek MD, Continuum, 2000 , and / or 'Specious Science - how genetics and evolution reveal why medical research on animals harms humans' (ditto ).

Both explain the scientific case against, are full of quotes by vivisectors themselves and medical professionals which fully support the case against , and are fully referenced.

Re wonder any medicine works, this is why we need scientific, human-relevant research / testing, tailored medicines, not the dangerously misleading, 'one-size-fits-all' nonsense of vivisection.

In 2003 Allen Roses, the then-head of Genetics at GSK, admitted in public that more than 90% of prescription drugs don't work in 50%-70% of patients taking them.

A BMJ (Dec 2003;327) article re this stated "Anybody familiar with the notion of "number needed to treat" (NNT) knows that it's usually necessary to treat many patients in order for one to benefit.

NNTs under 5 are unusual, whereas NNTs over 20 are common....

Why is the NHS paying over £7bn ($12bn; 10bn) a year for drugs that don't work? "

No refunds to the NHS (taxpayer) for all those drugs paid for but which didn't work - and that's leaving aside the exposure of patients to risks of, and actual, harmful / lethal adverse drug reactions, and also delay in them getting treatment while taking drugs that won't work.

As I've said it is the tiny, tiny differences between individuals of the same species that are crucial , if results from humans don't predict effects in 'humans' how can they possibly be taking the results from completely different species and using them to predict effects in humans?

Re fleas and following natural instincts, the same can be said of a wild carnivore but no-one would argue a human being attacked shouldn’t act in self-defence. No-one expects people to be over-run with fleas or rodents etc but morality demands we respect others’ lives, seek the most humane solution and avoid harming and killing whenever we can.

Self-defence is different to conflict of interests, is different to deliberately seeking out, or breeding, in order to inflict pain and suffering and kill, and is different to superior / inferior ethics which (conveniently) deem a group inferior on purely arbitrary grounds.

Re animal testing and self-interest, as above there is no such analogy, self-defence is entirely different. Your conclusion re benefits does not follow from the statements, (leaving aside your naughty change of premise between statements) if it did follow then you must also believe that as it is acceptable to kill a human in self-defence it is therefore acceptable to kill humans purely for self-interests. I’m sure you don’t believe that :)

Re plants and response to stimuli, there is simply no evidence that plants can choose NOT to respond, it is a chemical reaction not a sentient decision, there is no evidence they are free-willed, sentient individuals which can feel pain and suffer etc. Photographic paper ‘responds’ to light but it isn’t sentient nor aware, that's a chemical reaction.

Morality demands we are consistent in our treatment of others, that we do not discriminate on purely self-serving arbitrary grounds – it is now indisputable that animals are sentient, have minds, are free-willed, we know they experience a range of emotions including fear, we know they can feel pain and suffer.

It is therefore wrong, immoral, to exclude them from the circle of compassion on purely arbitrary grounds.

Cont…

cont...

"However, as stated above self interest is also served in Animal Labs ."

Remember though that self interests were similarly served by the slave trade, by denying women the vote, by the apartheid regime, by every human atrocity -

I'm sure you do not feel that such were in fact justified because they suited the self-interests of the power-holding group.

Re strategic violence, I haven't though defended the right of any minority that feels hard done by society to take up arms against it.

Re paedophiles, I've explained re two parties involved in a previous post.

Re Frank Zappa, was it not a warning also to the authorities to reform, as - despite many decades of polite requests - the law still enshrined arbitrary discrimination.

Also, he of course had the luxury of time not being one of the victims.

Jeremy Bentham - "The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny....

the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?

Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being?...".

Again I put to you this question - what basis is there to exclude animals from the circle of compassion that does not also justify racism, sexism etc?

Twix, no I'm definitely not Norma.

I was pleased to see her posts though and you've reminded me - I meant to post the details of a book by Charles Patterson who has also written several books on the Holocaust, civil rights etc.

The book is 'Eternal Treblinka - our treatment of animals and the Holocaust'(Lantern Books, 2002).

This is a link to the website for the book, has excerpts etc

http://www.powerfulb
ook.com/foreword.htm
l

Hi ex-oxforder, appreciate your kind words /support, many thanks :)

I was going to contribute an entire essay on here outlining the paucity and purely arbitrary nature of terms like morality, the issues surrounding deregulation and criminalisation of animal testing etc.

The connection was mysteriously severed when I posted it.

I see that you are quite content to see rats as Jews and vice versa and no attempt on my part to argue otherwise would change that.

Perhaps if you and your pals were to actually promote serious alternatives and make them public rather than fire bombing laboratories and making outrageously hyperbolic anthropromorphic assumptions about animals you might have more sympathy in general.

If you have an alternative practical solution then promote it and allow it to be
critiqued.

I think if you look closely at you history books far more was achieved by the long term journalistic campaigns of the likes of Josephine Butler for the cause of suffrage than all the empty rhetoric and posturing of the suffragettes. Did the IRA achieve anything until they stopped bombing people?

I will simply say one last thing. Druggies argue that legalisation would be of use because it ensures a degree of regulation.

Criminalisation of animal testing would acheive the exact opposite. As it stands, it has recourse to the law. Abolish all that and you go against all your own principles.

I consider it a neccesary evil for the moment.In the long term, I believe it will be rendered
redundant. Tests are in decline and have been for years.

Its all very well getting all dewy eyed but reality is reality.

Sue wrote:
cont... "However, as stated above self interest is also served in Animal Labs ." Remember though that self interests were similarly served by the slave trade, by denying women the vote, by the apartheid regime, by every human atrocity - I'm sure you do not feel that such were in fact justified because they suited the self-interests of the power-holding group. Re strategic violence, I haven't though defended the right of any minority that feels hard done by society to take up arms against it. Re paedophiles, I've explained re two parties involved in a previous post. Re Frank Zappa, was it not a warning also to the authorities to reform, as - despite many decades of polite requests - the law still enshrined arbitrary discrimination. Also, he of course had the luxury of time not being one of the victims. Jeremy Bentham - "The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny.... the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being?...". Again I put to you this question - what basis is there to exclude animals from the circle of compassion that does not also justify racism, sexism etc?

Jeremy Bentham would have wholeheartedly approved of animal testing. It fits in well with his outlook that anything that is for the greater good of the greater majority is moral.

It is Utilitarianism that reduces human beings, animals etc. to mere cyphers in a cash nexus. Their only value being in terms of their utility (ie. economic generative capacity).

It is for this reason that his disciple Peter Singer supports the right to choose to abort disabled foetuses whilst defending the right to life of a lab rat.

Do you believe that a lab rat is worth more than a disabled human being?

Singer has actually now modified his position saying that the evidence of the amount of people helped by Tipu Aziz's experiments with apes in searching for a cure for Parkinson more than justify's the cost in animal terms. That is the true utilitarian position.

You have missed my point re. paedophiles. I asked if a militant group of them took it upon themselves to start a campaign of strategic terrorism would you support their right to do so? I did not ask for your opinions on the topic.

My point was that what a individual may consider to be moral, and the powers that be immoral is highly subjective.

You argue that laws are purely arbitrary displays of power.
Does that include laws regarding rape, murder etc?

You talk also about morality, well surely the law, in its ideal sense, is the embodiment of a specific morality catering to the needs of the members of society. So if laws are purely arbitrary then what about the morality they represent?

Please also define "morality" and upon what principles it can be objectively defined.

In seeking to change the laws are you yourself not guilty of being as abusive of power as the law makers themselves. You are seeking to change the law so that it fits with your anthropromorphic fantasies. Is that not similar to what you accuse the law makers of doing?
In that you are seeking to arbitrarily impose a world view that suits your own outlook on the world and are prepared to firebomb bully and persecute those who hold other views. (A world view that would criminalise the consumption of meat, presumably? But not fruit or vegetables of course.)

As I have said if you are going to argue that we embrace the non exploitation of of defenceless beings then extend it to fruit and vegetables as well. You might just as well. It's about as realistic as your current position.

Lets take a highly relevant case. Say somebody decides they are going to sit on a bus with a bomb and take everybody on that bus out, claiming that the loss of half a dozen people is small compared to the tens of thousands of people suffering as a result of a nations foreign policy? Is that an ethical position?In what way does it differ from random groups of people setting themselves up as protectors of the interests of others?

I do not believe laws to be wholly arbitrary. I believe there is a case for seeing an empirical basis for many of them. Certain behaviours have been criminalised as the long term consequences are potentially damaging either to the individual (playing football on motorways), to individuals (rape, murder, paedophilia etc) or to society in general (Drug abuse). We know from experience the traumas caused by the second class, we know the potential dangers of those in the first class and history demonstrates the sheer lunacy of returning to the good old days when the middle classes enjoyed vast profits out of addictions.

So wheras the selective implementation/ enforcement of these laws may have a degree of power based arbitrariness about them, the laws themselves can be said to be rooted in human interests.

I have already stated above why the laws concerning animal testing are wise and why attempts to overturn them would constitute a regressive step.

It is now down to you to provide a better alternative. Please outline a way of testing that would be non exploitative.
(Waits for the usual "What about all those criminals in jails?" spiel)
The answer is you can't because there are no practical alternatives. Kathy Archibald and co. have been challenged time and time again to produce a workable testing strategy, time and time again they have avoided the issue.

So please break the silence, provide your alternative. After all it would be good if your terrorist buddies were actually maiming people for a reasonable alternative wouldn't it?

You say your support for strategic violence does not mean you believe that it should be used by everybody that has a grudge against society.

Yet you also define laws as an arbitrary abuse of power. So either we have a position of dominance/subservien
cepropped up by unfair and arbitrary laws or we don't.

Besides you agree with the principle itself. Therefore you have to accept it if people use to follow what you may deem "immoral". The issue is the fact that you accept it as a fair means over debate.

Personally I don't it is too far down the line when paedophile groups will start using strong arm tactics to bully their view of the unfairness and cruelty of current legislation onto the rest of us.

You have no defense against them because you approve of those tactics being used to further political causes.

You and the druggies set the example, others will follow.

Hi, re your comment about seeing rats as Jews, I've never said they are, obviously they are different - it is the treatment of both that is the same -

group x deems group y inferior on arbitrary grounds -

group x then claims that as group y is inferior exploiting, oppressing, enslaving, maiming and killing members of group y is fully justified.

However, to each individual their life is theirs - yes group x can take the lives of group y, can imprison them, ruthlessly exploit them, experiment on them, mutilate and kill them....

but that is tyranny, the cruel and arbitrary exercise of power – how can we claim to despise and loathe tyranny while acting as tyrants ourselves?

I’ve read all your posts, rather than answering evey paragraph I'm going to address each aspect, to concentrate on the crux of the issues...so -

Animal rights , you have not answered my question, which is what is the reason to exclude animals from the circle of compassion that does not also justify racism, sexism etc etc?

This is the question that those who claim animals should not have rights need to answer, because if they cannot the implications are obvious.

Anti-vivisection – I’ve outlined the scientific case against,can you tell us what is the basis of scientific case for?

Re alts , in a previous post I've recommended two books which also include scientific, human-relevant methods, also on this link www.curedisease.net/
superior_methods.sht
ml

You say re Kathy Archibald, of EMP, but in fact as above link – and it is EMP which is calling for an independent, transparent public inquiry into the validity of animal experiments (250 MPs signed an EDM supporting EMP’s call) so the facts can be in the public domain…it is the pro-vivisection lobby which is trying to thwart that.

Strategic violence - you refer to Josephine Butler but ignore that many decades of polite reasoned arguments did not get her suffrage, she died in her seventies still without the right to vote…

she would have had it if polite, legitimate, reasoned arguments alone did succeed.

Utilitarianism -, Bentham was saying though that capacity to suffer is the crucial consideration and as animals have that capacity they should have equal consideration within Utilitarianism.

Peter Singer has not modified his position at all, it was and remains that animals should have equal consideration.

Utilitarianism being what it is, experimenting on animals and humans could be justified for the greater majority.

This is what Singer said in the Times,Dec 2006, re Aziz’s experiments –

"If an experiment on a small number of animals can cure a disease that affects tens of thousands, it could be justifiable.

Whether this is really the case in Professor Aziz’s experiments, about which I was asked in the BBC2 documentary Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing, is a question I have not studied sufficiently to offer an opinion about.

Certainly it has been disputed. In my book Animal Liberation I propose asking experimenters who use animals if they would be prepared to carry out their experiments on human beings at a similar mental level…"

www.timesonline.co.u

k/tol/comment/articl

e658128.ece

Paedophiles - you are missing my point, I'll try again...

paedophiles have victims, there are two parties involved, any claim by paedophiles for such a right would mean denying rights to the other party...

therefore I have every defence against them because they would not be seeking to end tyranny they would be demanding the right to be tyrants.

Laws - the fact is that laws have done and continue to discriminate against groups on a purely arbitrary basis, as I said just because something is legal that does not mean it is moral.

Debate - strategic violence for just-causes happens because polite, reasoned, entirely fair and justified requests are just totally ignored by those with power.

It doesn't happen 'instead' of debate it happens because those with power refuse to debate, refuse to listen, refuse to stop discriminating on arbitrary grounds.

Sue wrote:
Hi, re your comment about seeing rats as Jews, I\'ve never said they are, obviously they are different - it is the treatment of both that is the same - group x deems group y inferior on arbitrary grounds - group x then claims that as group y is inferior exploiting, oppressing, enslaving, maiming and killing members of group y is fully justified. However, to each individual their life is theirs - yes group x can take the lives of group y, can imprison them, ruthlessly exploit them, experiment on them, mutilate and kill them.... but that is tyranny, the cruel and arbitrary exercise of power – how can we claim to despise and loathe tyranny while acting as tyrants ourselves?

Fine, but paedophiles and druggies make similar claims, yet you have no problems playing the "oppressor" in the former case.

This indicates that it is YOUR application of "Liberation politics" that is purely arbitrary.

The reason I bring up paedophilia is because I know it is where all the liberal bullshit suddenly stops and the real politics takes over.

There is no comparison between the treatment of a rat in a lab and a Jew in Treblinka. The aim of a research lab is to find cures, the aim of Treblinka was to exterminate ruthlessy groups of people who didn't fit in with some ideal.

How many lab rats die of Typhus? Or face a work or die? Their function is utitlitarian,the end is not extermination of rats as a species.

What a profoundly distasteful, pig ignorant and willfully selective comparison that is!!
Jesus!!!

Sue wrote:
I’ve read all your posts, rather than answering evey paragraph I\'m going to address each aspect, to concentrate on the crux of the issues...so - Animal rights , you have not answered my question, which is what is the reason to exclude animals from the circle of compassion that does not also justify racism, sexism etc etc? This is the question that those who claim animals should not have rights need to answer, because if they cannot the implications are obvious. Anti-vivisection – I’ve outlined the scientific case against,can you tell us what is the basis of scientific case for? Re alts , in a previous post I\'ve recommended two books which also include scientific, human-relevant methods, also on this link www.curedisease.net/ superior_methods.sht ml You say re Kathy Archibald, of EMP, but in fact as above link – and it is EMP which is calling for an independent, transparent public inquiry into the validity of animal experiments (250 MPs signed an EDM supporting EMP’s call) so the facts can be in the public domain…it is the pro-vivisection lobby which is trying to thwart that. Strategic violence - you refer to Josephine Butler but ignore that many decades of polite reasoned arguments did not get her suffrage, she died in her seventies still without the right to vote… she would have had it if polite, legitimate, reasoned arguments alone did succeed.

Josephine Butler managed to get child prostitution criminalised, she managed to get an age of consent put in place and she criminalised the "white slave trade". All through articles, Henry Mayhew and Charles Dickens performed similar functions in highlighting the plight of those at the sharp end of Malthusian economics. It seems to me that you only refer to suffrage because it justifies your militant stance.You clearly have no real grasp of he rest of the political struggles going on then. Things like universal education, the abolition of 24 hour drinking laws the factory act etc etc. They were all achieved through debate, despite the Chartists and militant stirrers.

The arguments concerning universal suffrage were endlessly debated in the house of commons as a cursory reading of Macaulay, Mill and others will demonstrate. It is those debates that swung the day not loads of busty bourgeois throwing themselves under horses.

Re. Animal Rights. I have answered your point twofold, 1)If your position is to be consistent on a "arbitrary law" basis it should cover plants and vegetables. They are even more powerless than animals. It should also cover paedophiles as well, if you are really serious about discriminating against individuals.

Your postion is also irrelevant as it is based on a wholly anthropromorphic view of animals that most people do not share.

Instead ofposting links why don't you outline work that is being done and that has a reliable track record.

Let's talk Parkinson's disease, elaborate how the use of Primates was avoidable and give me the names of scientists who have come to the same findings as Tipu Aziz.

Sue wrote:
Utilitarianism -, Bentham was saying though that capacity to suffer is the crucial consideration and as animals have that capacity they should have equal consideration within Utilitarianism. Peter Singer has not modified his position at all, it was and remains that animals should have equal consideration. Utilitarianism being what it is, experimenting on animals and humans could be justified for the greater majority. This is what Singer said in the Times,Dec 2006, re Aziz’s experiments – "If an experiment on a small number of animals can cure a disease that affects tens of thousands, it could be justifiable. Whether this is really the case in Professor Aziz’s experiments, about which I was asked in the BBC2 documentary Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing, is a question I have not studied sufficiently to offer an opinion about. Certainly it has been disputed. In my book Animal Liberation I propose asking experimenters who use animals if they would be prepared to carry out their experiments on human beings at a similar mental level…" www.timesonline.co.u k/tol/comment/articl e658128.ece

And where does Singers support for the abortion of disabled foetuses fit in?

Please provide me with a precise reference for the comments you attribute to Bentham. I will look into them. I have read most of his essays and that seems a total volte face from the position he puts forward.

Sue wrote:
Paedophiles - you are missing my point, I'll try again... paedophiles have victims, there are two parties involved, any claim by paedophiles for such a right would mean denying rights to the other party... therefore I have every defence against them because they would not be seeking to end tyranny they would be demanding the right to be tyrants. Laws - the fact is that laws have done and continue to discriminate against groups on a purely arbitrary basis, as I said just because something is legal that does not mean it is moral. Debate - strategic violence for just-causes happens because polite, reasoned, entirely fair and justified requests are just totally ignored by those with power. It doesn't happen 'instead' of debate it happens because those with power refuse to debate, refuse to listen, refuse to stop discriminating on arbitrary grounds.

If paedophilia is the result of a congenital bias rather than an actively chosen way of life, they could be seen as equally victims of arbitrary laws.

Most of the arguments against their condition (mental illness etc) were once levelled at gay people.

Have you read Kinsey's report, he argues that the vast majority of adult child encounters are harmless, that the negative hysterical reaction is down to a press and other powers deliberatly stirring up trouble.

Which brings me back to my question. If groups like Nambla started bombing and intimidating people to follow their agenda would you support their right to do so?

Wow Sue and Alan. interesting debate you've got there. I started reading story as it was about the paint on the fences of an area that I live in, starting off about the animal rights protestors(I wonder how many of them eat meat) and finishing off with bombs!
I think you guys have gone full circle in your views!
To sum it up Tony is doing a great job, he is in regular contact with all NHW members in the area. Some people in other areas of the country don't even know NHW exists and end up having to living with grafiti walls as there is no one to help fix the problems. Keep up the good work Tony!

Let's also mention the recipricocity factor.

Within the human world there is reciprocal respect.

This does not apply with animals.

If you say to a Bengal Tiger "Hey I've included you in my circle of compassion" chances are slight that he will include you in theirs.

It is what ultimatly makes your Treblinka comparisons obscene.

Apologies delay, I'll try to catch up :)

Extending rights to oppressed groups isn’t 'liberal bullsh*t', I find it hard to believe you really think it is.

Re “There is no comparison between the treatment of a rat in a lab and a Jew in Treblinka. The aim of a research lab is to find cures, the aim of Treblinka was to exterminate ruthlessy groups of people who didn't fit in with some ideal. ”

In the first sentence you refer to ‘treatment of’ but in the second you refer to motive, I hope you read the book “Eternal Treblinka” I think you would find it enlightening.

“How many lab rats...not extermination of rats as a species.”

Remember though that every rat is a unique, sentient, free-willed individual who can feel pain and suffer - experiments were carried out on those in concentration camps, do you think their suffering was magically any less because the motive for the experiments was for medical research?

Suffering is suffering, just because the power group doesn’t care about the suffering of those they have (conveniently) deemed inferior does not make the suffering of those victims any the less, regardless of race, sex, age, religion, species etc.

“What a profoundly distasteful, pig ignorant and willfully selective comparison that is!!
Jesus!!! ”

Do you deny animals can feel pain and suffer? Do you deny that each individual’s life is their own? Do you really condone and support ‘might makes right’ ethics? Really ?

Re Josephine Butler, many campaigners for animals have similarly made progress, the (later R) SPCA was founded in 1824, laws giving limited protection have been introduced..…

however, the criminalising of child prostitution did not greatly threaten the interests of those with power, extending the right to vote did…

animal welfare does not greatly threaten the interests of those with power, rights for animals does.

You seem unaware of the enormous amount of peaceful campaigning to inform, educate and change laws that is going on day in, day out.

As history shows us together both peaceful campaigning and strategic violence have brought about change.

Re "I have answered your point twofold"

No you haven't answered it, I asked you what is the basis to exclude animals from the circle of compassion that does not justify racism, sexism etc etc?'.

So what is that basis?

Clearly you so exclude animals from the circle of compassion so why not tell us the rational, logical, consistent basis upon which you have decided to do that?

1)If your position is to be consistent on a "arbitrary law" basis it should cover plants and vegetables.

I think you have misunderstood - I am not saying animals should have rights because the law is arbitrary, I am saying they should have rights because they are sentient, free-willed individuals who can feel pain and suffer etc.

I have already explained this...when we consider how we treat others we must take into account what is morally relevant

sentient, free-willed, capacity to feel pain and suffer etc are factors that are morally relevant -

we know animals have these, there is no evidence to support that plants do.

"Your postion is also irrelevant as it is based on a wholly anthropromorphic view of animals that most people do not share"

It isn't anthropromorphic to say that animals are sentient, free-willed individuals who can feel pain and suffer - do you really deny this?

"It should also cover paedophiles as well, if you are really serious about discriminating against individuals "

You seem to still completely misunderstand and seem to forget that the victims of paedophiles are also individuals.

You go on about paedophiles but by your reasoning it would be discriminating against murderers to deny them the right to kill!

'Animal rights' is about protecting vulnerable victims from powerful, ruthless humans, just as are human rights.

"Instead ofposting links why don't you outline work that is being done and that has a reliable track record."

Previously you said we should be spreading the word, that was just one example of how we are trying to do that...and besides it is just a waste of time and lots of space to sit and type info that is already available :)

Let's talk Parkinson's disease, elaborate how the use of Primates was avoidable"

They are different specicies, each and every species is different at the cellular and molecular level which is where disease occurs.

These differences are immeasurably complex, look up re genetics and you'll get the idea, and remember that just one tiny change means a human will have CF.

These differences mean that it is impossible to take the results from individuals of any species and scientifically / safely apply them to individuals of any other species.

Thus the results from other species are invalid for 'humans' and therefore potentially and actually dangerously misleading.

You must have at least heard of thalidomide, TGN1412, Vioxx...and remember that in the US alone each year around 100,000 people are killed by adverse reactions to 'animal tested' drugs, with around 2 million more needing admission to hospital as a result of same.

Do you know the failure rate in clinical trials of drugs which have 'passed' animal testing?


and give me the names of scientists who have come to the same findings as Tipu Aziz

DBS was actually discovered in humans.

Getting there :)

And where does Singers support for the abortion of disabled foetuses fit in?

In Utilitarianism?

Please provide me with a precise reference for the comments you attribute to Bentham. I will look into them. I have read most of his essays and that seems a total volte face from the position he puts forward.

Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789), chapter 17 "Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence", section 1, footnote. The note concludes, "the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?".

"It may one day come to be recognised that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate.

What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month old.

But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being?"

"If paedophilia is the result of a congenital bias rather than an actively chosen way of life, they could be seen as equally victims of arbitrary laws."

I don't think they could, any more than ditto urge to rape, murder etc....they are not being 'discriminated' against on an arbitrary basis but because their 'interests' do not outweigh the fundamental interests of their (potential/actual) victims.

Were we to have laws which made it illegal for white men to sexually abuse children but not black men, or visa versa that would be arbitrary, based on colour of skin (not the interests of the victims).

Do you see?

"Most of the arguments against their condition (mental illness etc) were once levelled at gay people."

Were it to be illegal for gay men to sexually abuse children but not illegal for hetrosexuals to ditto that would be arbitrary, based on a non-morally-relevant factor (and not the interests of the victims).

Were we to have laws which allowed white men to murder disabled women that would be arbitrary, ie colour of skin, disablement - rather than what is morally relevant ie 'can they suffer?'.

Anyway, back to the issues...

what is the basis to exclude animals from the circle of compassion that does not also justify racism, sexism etc

What is the scientific case for vivisection for medical research?

I'll catch up with the next posts tomorrow :)

Sue wrote:
Apologies delay, I'll try to catch up :) Extending rights to oppressed groups isn’t 'liberal bullsh*t', I find it hard to believe you really think it is. Re “There is no comparison between the treatment of a rat in a lab and a Jew in Treblinka. The aim of a research lab is to find cures, the aim of Treblinka was to exterminate ruthlessy groups of people who didn't fit in with some ideal. ” In the first sentence you refer to ‘treatment of’ but in the second you refer to motive, I hope you read the book “Eternal Treblinka” I think you would find it enlightening. “How many lab rats...not extermination of rats as a species.” Remember though that every rat is a unique, sentient, free-willed individual who can feel pain and suffer - experiments were carried out on those in concentration camps, do you think their suffering was magically any less because the motive for the experiments was for medical research? Suffering is suffering, just because the power group doesn’t care about the suffering of those they have (conveniently) deemed inferior does not make the suffering of those victims any the less, regardless of race, sex, age, religion, species etc. “What a profoundly distasteful, pig ignorant and willfully selective comparison that is!! Jesus!!! ” Do you deny animals can feel pain and suffer? Do you deny that each individual’s life is their own? Do you really condone and support ‘might makes right’ ethics? Really ? Re Josephine Butler, many campaigners for animals have similarly made progress, the (later R) SPCA was founded in 1824, laws giving limited protection have been introduced..… however, the criminalising of child prostitution did not greatly threaten the interests of those with power, extending the right to vote did… animal welfare does not greatly threaten the interests of those with power, rights for animals does. You seem unaware of the enormous amount of peaceful campaigning to inform, educate and change laws that is going on day in, day out. As history shows us together both peaceful campaigning and strategic violence have brought about change.

Your argument is based on an anthropromorphic leap of faith that assumes that each and every individual being suffers to the same degree.

This ignores issues like relative brain sizes etc. which would seriously affect the degree to which a particular being suffers. Is the suffering of a flea the same as a human being?

I will not read the Treblinka book as I find such rhetoric obscene!!

If paedophilia is a congenital condition then, surely, the laws that are imposed on their behaviours are also arbitrary and power related. Yet I don't hear you speaking in their defence as fellow human beings.

"Animal Rights" is pure mythology developed by somebody who has no problems negating the existence of the disabled through selective abortion (far closer to Treblinka in its ethos, but you are very quiet on that as well). It is about as challenging to the status quo as asserting the moon to be "actually" square.

Animal welfare is a different issue altogether and people who peacefully and rationally campaign on those issues I have no argument with.

If you think that your ends are going to attained through violence and intimidation then so be it. But you will only succeed in driving people away from your cause.

I wonder whether , given what your assertions concerning the ending of child prostitution seem to indicate, the idea of social improvements in general is seondary in your eyes to "challenging" the "power". In which case I think most people for who politics is not about posturing and gesturism would be well advised to consider your position as unfocussed and immature.

Sue wrote:
Re "I have answered your point twofold" No you haven't answered it, I asked you what is the basis to exclude animals from the circle of compassion that does not justify racism, sexism etc etc?'. So what is that basis? Clearly you so exclude animals from the circle of compassion so why not tell us the rational, logical, consistent basis upon which you have decided to do that? 1)If your position is to be consistent on a "arbitrary law" basis it should cover plants and vegetables. I think you have misunderstood - I am not saying animals should have rights because the law is arbitrary, I am saying they should have rights because they are sentient, free-willed individuals who can feel pain and suffer etc. I have already explained this...when we consider how we treat others we must take into account what is morally relevant sentient, free-willed, capacity to feel pain and suffer etc are factors that are morally relevant - we know animals have these, there is no evidence to support that plants do. "Your postion is also irrelevant as it is based on a wholly anthropromorphic view of animals that most people do not share" It isn't anthropromorphic to say that animals are sentient, free-willed individuals who can feel pain and suffer - do you really deny this? "It should also cover paedophiles as well, if you are really serious about discriminating against individuals " You seem to still completely misunderstand and seem to forget that the victims of paedophiles are also individuals. You go on about paedophiles but by your reasoning it would be discriminating against murderers to deny them the right to kill! 'Animal rights' is about protecting vulnerable victims from powerful, ruthless humans, just as are human rights.

Please define morality. Surely, as I have said before, it is just as arbitrary, power defined concept as legality?

Animal rights is about bullying and intimidating people into accepting totally irrational propositions. It is as much about abusing power as those it claims to oppose. If it wasnt, there would be no need for the balaclavas and secrecy.

For somebody who supports the sendng of razor blades to the chidren of scientists through the post to presume to lecture the rest of us on morality is as absurd and tasteless as comparisons with Treblinka.

It IS anthropromorphic to say that the suffering of a rat in a lab is the same as a jew in a concentration camp, just as it is absurd to regard all paedophiles as murderers. (13 million downloads in three years, that's a lot of serial killers out there if we take your position.)

So it is "Liberal Bullshit"!!

Sue wrote:
"Instead ofposting links why don't you outline work that is being done and that has a reliable track record." Previously you said we should be spreading the word, that was just one example of how we are trying to do that...and besides it is just a waste of time and lots of space to sit and type info that is already available :) Let's talk Parkinson's disease, elaborate how the use of Primates was avoidable" They are different specicies, each and every species is different at the cellular and molecular level which is where disease occurs. These differences are immeasurably complex, look up re genetics and you'll get the idea, and remember that just one tiny change means a human will have CF. These differences mean that it is impossible to take the results from individuals of any species and scientifically / safely apply them to individuals of any other species. Thus the results from other species are invalid for 'humans' and therefore potentially and actually dangerously misleading. You must have at least heard of thalidomide, TGN1412, Vioxx...and remember that in the US alone each year around 100,000 people are killed by adverse reactions to 'animal tested' drugs, with around 2 million more needing admission to hospital as a result of same. Do you know the failure rate in clinical trials of drugs which have 'passed' animal testing? and give me the names of scientists who have come to the same findings as Tipu Aziz DBS was actually discovered in humans.

But similar differences also exist between individual human subjects as well.

There is no clear cut way of eliminating the degrees of probability that what might benefit one individual will harm another.

Would you volunteer your services to help test drugs in their primary stages?

The Thalidomide case was a result of the drug not being tested on pregnant rats as it wasn't thought of at the time. When it was, after the effect, it was found that the offspring of rats treated with it had birth deficiencies.

Instead of trying to blind me with irrelvant figures please outline in detail here the alternatives, their success rates, the treatments they have allowed etc. etc.

The more you continue you to attempt to obfuscate a fairly simple request like that, the less convincing you sound.

Sue wrote:
Getting there :) And where does Singers support for the abortion of disabled foetuses fit in? In Utilitarianism? Please provide me with a precise reference for the comments you attribute to Bentham. I will look into them. I have read most of his essays and that seems a total volte face from the position he puts forward. Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789), chapter 17 \"Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence\", section 1, footnote. The note concludes, \"the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?\". \"It may one day come to be recognised that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being?\"

Thank you for this I will dig out my copy and see which context he is setting this in.

Now Singer's support of selective abortion?

Sue wrote:
\"If paedophilia is the result of a congenital bias rather than an actively chosen way of life, they could be seen as equally victims of arbitrary laws.\" I don\'t think they could, any more than ditto urge to rape, murder etc....they are not being \'discriminated\' against on an arbitrary basis but because their \'interests\' do not outweigh the fundamental interests of their (potential/actual) victims. Were we to have laws which made it illegal for white men to sexually abuse children but not black men, or visa versa that would be arbitrary, based on colour of skin (not the interests of the victims). Do you see? \"Most of the arguments against their condition (mental illness etc) were once levelled at gay people.\" Were it to be illegal for gay men to sexually abuse children but not illegal for hetrosexuals to ditto that would be arbitrary, based on a non-morally-relevant factor (and not the interests of the victims). Were we to have laws which allowed white men to murder disabled women that would be arbitrary, ie colour of skin, disablement - rather than what is morally relevant ie \'can they suffer?\'. Anyway, back to the issues... what is the basis to exclude animals from the circle of compassion that does not also justify racism, sexism etc What is the scientific case for vivisection for medical research? I\'ll catch up with the next posts tomorrow :)

You are still discriminating against a body of people on what may be genetically determined factors and what YOU hold to be their way of behaviour as opposed to their actual behaviour.

So I repeat my assertion, if you have the right to dictate and discriminate against them on the basis of a fixed condition they had no choice over, then you are saying that the power to discriminate against groups is valid.

If it is a congenital condition, the sheer psychological trauma involved in coming to terms with it must be a form of suffering.

As you are still pushing home the same rhetorical questions as previously. I would answer the first "recipricocity".If a bengal tiger, a rat or a flea was to open its circle of compassion to include me then I have no objection to doing likewise.

As to the second
www.pro-test.org puts the case better than I could.

However the important thing is that you believe that, for the sake of broader society, the use of legislative power is acceptable and that the rights of certain groups can be trodden on if general opinion holds it necceesary.

If that applies to humans then why not to animals?

Hi Resident Evil, wondering if you have any thoughts on my question 'what is the basis to exclude animals from the circle of compassion that does not also justify racism, sexism etc?'?

Re recipricocity factor, you forget though that babies, severely brain-damaged etc humans cannot reciprocate...

do you propose we treat them as animals are treated?

Would it be ok to experiment upon those humans, ruthlessly exploit them, hunt them, eat them etc?....

if your answer is 'No' then the 'recipricocity factor' argument obviously fails and cannot be a basis for denying animals rights.

"It is what ultimatly makes your Treblinka comparisons obscene."

No, your argument has failed - well it has presuming your answer is 'No'...

Hi Alan re Your argument is based on an anthropromorphic leap of faith that assumes that each and every individual being suffers to the same degree.

Ah good old 'degrees of suffering'...where the power group always claim the capacity to suffer far more than their victims, what with the victims being inferior and all that.

To each individual their suffering is as great as it can be to them, the physical pain they suffer is as great to them ...

who can suffer more then...an extremely rich 40-year-old self-made business man (or 40-year-old scientist) or a two-year-old child?...

Do you really think that if both were tortured the suffering and pain experienced by the child would be less in any meaningful, morally-relevant way?

"This ignores issues like relative brain sizes etc.... which would seriously affect the degree to which a particular being suffers ."

That is pure assumption and common sense tells us that capacity to suffer and experience pain are survial mechanisms, so to each the degrees of suffering / pain must be high enough to trigger action.

"Is the suffering of a flea the same as a human being?"

As above, to each the degree must be high enough so to each it is the same.

I will not read the Treblinka book as I find such rhetoric obscene!!

That is the sign of a very closed mind, I think you are better than that, that you understand that to come to an informed opinion one must at least hear the arguments being made.

If paedophilia is a congenital condition then, surely, the laws that are imposed on their behaviours are also arbitrary and power related. Yet I don't hear you speaking in their defence as fellow human beings.

The reason, as I've tried so hard to explain but I'll try again!, is that their interests in sexual gratification by sexual acts on children do not outweigh the fundamental rights of the children.

What would be the basis for claiming that because individual A is suffering from a congenital condition therefore innocent and defenceless individual B has to take 'responsibility', endure the consequences of A's condition, has to pay the price and suffer rather than A?

"Animal Rights" is pure mythology

It is no more mythology than were Abolition, suffrage, anti-aparheid etc...and as with those just-causes it will happen, there will continue to be moral progress - there are no morally-relevant arguments against it :)

developed by somebody who has no problems negating the existence of the disabled through selective abortion

You seem to forget that happens day in, day out eg tests for Down's Syndrome.

"(far closer to Treblinka in its ethos, but you are very quiet on that as well)."

Very quiet on what? As above re happening every day anyway, and please remember it is scientists who are creating, and pushing, the techniques to do such screening not ARAs...and it was scientists experimenting on Jews in concentratioin camps not ARAs.

"It is about as challenging to the status quo as asserting the moon to be "actually" square."

First they ignore, then they ridicule, then they fight - the fact that they are at the fighting stage shows they feel their interests are very much under threat.

"Anmal welfare is a different issue altogether and people who peacefully and rationally campaign on those issues I have no argument with."

Welfare and rights are indeed different issues, eg imagine if we did not abolish slavery and were instead content with only 'humane' conditions for the slaves.

If you think that your ends are going to attained through violence and intimidation then so be it. But you will only succeed in driving people away from your cause.

History shows us not, it doesn't work like that - either one believes in the cause itself or not...

anyone who said 'I'm not supporting an end to apartheid anymore because Mandela is a terrorist' could not genuinely believe in that cause...ditto re any such campaign, including animal rights.

"I wonder whether...the idea of social improvements in general is seondary in your eyes to "challenging" the "power".

I don't want to 'challenge the power' I want animals to have the rights they need...but that 'the power' is denying them on conveniently self-serving arbitrary grounds.

"Please define morality. Surely, as I have said before, it is just as arbitrary, power defined concept as legality?"

Morality pertains to principles relating to the distinction between right and wrong...it is obvious, thankfully, that over time what 'society' considers right and wrong changes...

but morality isn't arbitraty, rather its lack is, eventually, acknowledged.

Was the slave trade any less immoral because the slavers didn't think it was immoral? No, the suffering of their victims was no less because of that, it was immoral and, eventually, that was acknowledged.

I must give this quote again because I think it sums up re morality and eventually being acknowledged -

'Strange how people can see injustice throughout all the ages except their own'.

Animal rights is about bullying and intimidating people

A blatent misrepresentation :) Animal rights is about extending rights to others, widening the circle of compassion... not restricting it as you condone...

animal rights and human rights are the same struggle - against tyranny, against ruthless humans exploiting, oppressing, enslaving, harming, maiming and killing the innocent and defenceless.

" a totally irrational propositions

It isn't irrational at all, the case is clear, logical, fact-based and indisputable - what is irrational is the arbitrary discrimination that denies them rights.

"It is as much about abusing power as those it claims to oppose. If it wasnt, there would be no need for the balaclavas and secrecy ."

Oh come now, it is common sense why they are needed, no amatuer psychology needed :)

"For somebody who supports the sendng of razor blades to the chidren of scientists through the post"

I think you have misrepresented the situation for effect there, please let's debate properly and not resort to such.

"to presume to lecture the rest of us on morality is as absurd and tasteless as comparisons with Treblinka. "

Was you to see a man attacking a child in the street and your polite requests for him to stop were ignored what would you do?

Would using violence to stop him make you the aggressor and the man the victim?

Do you believe we should not have gone to war against Nazi Germany?

Are you a pacifist - if not you already understand and support the principle - you are just not applying it consistently.

It IS anthropromorphic to say that the suffering of a rat in a lab is the same as a jew in a concentration camp,

No it isn't, unless you are denying that rats are sentient, free-willed individuals who can feel pain and suffer - are you denying that?

"just as it is absurd to regard all paedophiles as murderers. (13 million downloads in three years, that's a lot of serial killers out there if we take your position.)"

I have NOT said all paedophiles are murderers though.

So it is "Liberal Bullshit"!!

Apologies I don't see what you mean, can you explain, thanks.

Sue wrote:
Re recipricocity factor, you forget though that babies, severely brain-damaged etc humans cannot reciprocate... do you propose we treat them as animals are treated? Would it be ok to experiment upon those humans, ruthlessly exploit them, hunt them, eat them etc?.... if your answer is \'No\' then the \'recipricocity factor\' argument obviously fails and cannot be a basis for denying animals rights. \"It is what ultimatly makes your Treblinka comparisons obscene.\" No, your argument has failed - well it has presuming your answer is \'No\'...

Well Peter Singer believes in aborting disabled foetuses. I think that answers that point fairly succinctly.

If potential humans are to be regarded as disposable, then why not lab rats?

Sue wrote:
Hi Alan re Your argument is based on an anthropromorphic leap of faith that assumes that each and every individual being suffers to the same degree. Ah good old \'degrees of suffering\'...where the power group always claim the capacity to suffer far more than their victims, what with the victims being inferior and all that. To each individual their suffering is as great as it can be to them, the physical pain they suffer is as great to them ... who can suffer more then...an extremely rich 40-year-old self-made business man (or 40-year-old scientist) or a two-year-old child?... Do you really think that if both were tortured the suffering and pain experienced by the child would be less in any meaningful, morally-relevant way? \"This ignores issues like relative brain sizes etc.... which would seriously affect the degree to which a particular being suffers .\" That is pure assumption and common sense tells us that capacity to suffer and experience pain are survial mechanisms, so to each the degrees of suffering / pain must be high enough to trigger action. \"Is the suffering of a flea the same as a human being?\" As above, to each the degree must be high enough so to each it is the same. I will not read the Treblinka book as I find such rhetoric obscene!! That is the sign of a very closed mind, I think you are better than that, that you understand that to come to an informed opinion one must at least hear the arguments being made. If paedophilia is a congenital condition then, surely, the laws that are imposed on their behaviours are also arbitrary and power related. Yet I don\'t hear you speaking in their defence as fellow human beings. The reason, as I\'ve tried so hard to explain but I\'ll try again!, is that their interests in sexual gratification by sexual acts on children do not outweigh the fundamental rights of the children. What would be the basis for claiming that because individual A is suffering from a congenital condition therefore innocent and defenceless individual B has to take \'responsibility\', endure the consequences of A\'s condition, has to pay the price and suffer rather than A? \"Animal Rights\" is pure mythology It is no more mythology than were Abolition, suffrage, anti-aparheid etc...and as with those just-causes it will happen, there will continue to be moral progress - there are no morally-relevant arguments against it :) developed by somebody who has no problems negating the existence of the disabled through selective abortion You seem to forget that happens day in, day out eg tests for Down\'s Syndrome. \"(far closer to Treblinka in its ethos, but you are very quiet on that as well).\" Very quiet on what? As above re happening every day anyway, and please remember it is scientists who are creating, and pushing, the techniques to do such screening not ARAs...and it was scientists experimenting on Jews in concentratioin camps not ARAs. \"It is about as challenging to the status quo as asserting the moon to be \"actually\" square.\" First they ignore, then they ridicule, then they fight - the fact that they are at the fighting stage shows they feel their interests are very much under threat. \"Anmal welfare is a different issue altogether and people who peacefully and rationally campaign on those issues I have no argument with.\" Welfare and rights are indeed different issues, eg imagine if we did not abolish slavery and were instead content with only \'humane\' conditions for the slaves. If you think that your ends are going to attained through violence and intimidation then so be it. But you will only succeed in driving people away from your cause. History shows us not, it doesn\'t work like that - either one believes in the cause itself or not... anyone who said \'I\'m not supporting an end to apartheid anymore because Mandela is a terrorist\' could not genuinely believe in that cause...ditto re any such campaign, including animal rights. \"I wonder whether...the idea of social improvements in general is seondary in your eyes to \"challenging\" the \"power\". I don\'t want to \'challenge the power\' I want animals to have the rights they need...but that \'the power\' is denying them on conveniently self-serving arbitrary grounds.

I am afraid I remain unconvinced by this parrallel between animal and human rights.

Putting the life of a rat on the same level as that of a human slave is ludicrous.

Even if we take the relativistic assumptions (and as you do not know exactly how the nervous system of a flea of an ant functions you are merely projecting an anthropromorphic construct onto them) as a basis, humanity comes first.

You have still to provide an alternative that will meet the medicinal needs of humanity. The simple fact is there aren't any at the moment. If the technology was there animal testing would have stopped years ago. The scientists I know all look forward to the day when such things will be unnesscary.

There is a major funding gap between research funding for animal research and research into non animal research which needs to be equalised.

So, given your comments regarding Mandela, do you believe it to be impossible for anybody to say they care about the plight of Palestinians unless they show their commitment by blowing up "infidels"?

I have heard that kind of bullying rhetoric used many times. Usually by fundamentalist creeps who get others to do their work for them.

Have we really abolishd slavery? Or have we just simply stopped calling it such? I don't see much difference between companies getting cheap produce by underpaying foreign workers or using children. It's the nature of economics.

Back to paedophiles, again you agree with me that certain groups need to be kept in their place by the arbitrary use of power if it benefits a greater majority. I feel the same way about animal labs.

But lets broaden the argument,lets take this animal rights farrago to its ultimate extreme.

Where does that leave those of us who love a nice juicy steak every now and again? To be bundled off to prison to be deprogrammed? Would the same apply to a lion attacking and eating a gazelle? How would you enforce that?

Sue wrote:
"Please define morality. Surely, as I have said before, it is just as arbitrary, power defined concept as legality?" Morality pertains to principles relating to the distinction between right and wrong...it is obvious, thankfully, that over time what 'society' considers right and wrong changes... but morality isn't arbitraty, rather its lack is, eventually, acknowledged. Was the slave trade any less immoral because the slavers didn't think it was immoral? No, the suffering of their victims was no less because of that, it was immoral and, eventually, that was acknowledged. I must give this quote again because I think it sums up re morality and eventually being acknowledged - 'Strange how people can see injustice throughout all the ages except their own'. Animal rights is about bullying and intimidating people A blatent misrepresentation :) Animal rights is about extending rights to others, widening the circle of compassion... not restricting it as you condone... animal rights and human rights are the same struggle - against tyranny, against ruthless humans exploiting, oppressing, enslaving, harming, maiming and killing the innocent and defenceless. " a totally irrational propositions It isn't irrational at all, the case is clear, logical, fact-based and indisputable - what is irrational is the arbitrary discrimination that denies them rights. "It is as much about abusing power as those it claims to oppose. If it wasnt, there would be no need for the balaclavas and secrecy ." Oh come now, it is common sense why they are needed, no amatuer psychology needed :) "For somebody who supports the sendng of razor blades to the chidren of scientists through the post" I think you have misrepresented the situation for effect there, please let's debate properly and not resort to such. "to presume to lecture the rest of us on morality is as absurd and tasteless as comparisons with Treblinka. " Was you to see a man attacking a child in the street and your polite requests for him to stop were ignored what would you do? Would using violence to stop him make you the aggressor and the man the victim? Do you believe we should not have gone to war against Nazi Germany? Are you a pacifist - if not you already understand and support the principle - you are just not applying it consistently. It IS anthropromorphic to say that the suffering of a rat in a lab is the same as a jew in a concentration camp, No it isn't, unless you are denying that rats are sentient, free-willed individuals who can feel pain and suffer - are you denying that? "just as it is absurd to regard all paedophiles as murderers. (13 million downloads in three years, that's a lot of serial killers out there if we take your position.)" I have NOT said all paedophiles are murderers though. So it is "Liberal Bullshit"!! Apologies I don't see what you mean, can you explain, thanks.

"Right" and "Wrong"?? In whose judgement? By what scale?

You have already contradicted this concept by saying that killing a flea in self defence is justified, so is killing animals for human convenience right or wrong? If it is right to kill a flea to defend oneself then it must also be morally right to kill an animal if some potential greater good has been acheived.

"Right" and "Wrong" are highly subjective concepts as your point about slavery makes clear. This means that any "moral" system is also going to be arbitrary if it uses such simplistic reductionism as a starting block.

It rules out the notion of circumstances etc. and is pretty arbitrary.

I can accept that a rat may be sentient but whether it has free will or not is another matter. Personally I share Schopenhauer's view that everything is governed/dominated by an instinctive will to exist rather than rational will, and that only mankind is aware of that fact (and feels the full misery of it).

He opposed vivisection on those grounds but also bigged up plants as well as was consistent with his outlook.

So no, I don't accept that animals have free will, a Boa Constrictor or a Bengal Tiger is governed by instinct not rational choice.

You put paedophiles on the same level as murderers which isone and the same thing ethically.

As for the lame comparisons with the threat from Nazi Germany. You really need to lay off the drugs a little. It is singularly absurd to compare some guy in a white suit conducting Chloresterol research in a laboratory with Hitler invading Poland!!

Whilst writing this, have been looking across at the big soppy furry bundle of feline curled up in a corner of the sofa purring away.

What rights does she need? A good feed, lots of cuddles and somewhere to sh-t mainly.

I can't somehow see her as being a particularly political
animal.

I would hate it if something happened to her, but then I also like a good lamb stew so I am really in no position to quibble.

But similar differences also exist between individual human subjects as well. There is no clear cut way of eliminating the degrees of probability that what might benefit one individual will harm another.


Yes! Basic observation by anyone shows that it is the tiny, tiny differences between individuals of the same species that make ALL the difference, not the number of similarities.

Those differences mean that even humans do not predict for'humans', mean that a drug which helps one human can mailm/kill another human...

yet we are expected to belive they are taking the results from completely different species and scientifically / safely applying them to 'humans'!

"Would you volunteer your services to help test drugs in their primary stages?"

Not under the current testing regime which, irrationally, makes judgements as to safety based on tests on completely different species...I would if we were using scientific, human-relevant pre-human-use methods.

I am donating my body to medical research (after my death of course) because human tissues / organs are much needed for scientific, human-relevant research.

(Just to mention that another issue of course is 'testing' drugs on healthy people rather than on those who actually have the illnesses the drug is meant to affect...there are many aspects, it is easy to get distracted from the crux of the issues, I hope we can debate those because everything else just arises from them.)

"The Thalidomide case was a result of the drug not being tested on pregnant rats as it wasn't thought of at the time."

I was referring to the nerve damage, often irreversible, it caused in around 40,000 people (originally marketed as a sedative)...

this potential harm was considered in the animal tests but they did not predict any such...so it was marketed as completely safe.

So, it was because of (the failure of) animal testing that thalidomide got to the market and caused both the terrible nerve damage and birth defects.

Of course after the event they tried - as with birth defects - to recreate the nerve damage in animals...but have consistently failed to do that.

Also, when after they event they tested for birth defects, these appeared only in certain species / strains of species...so anyway they wouldn't have known beforehand to choose to test on those particular species / strains.

There is a very good book on the issue of thalidomide, it's out of print but second-hand copies are about for sale...

it is called 'Thalidomide and the Power of the Drugs Companies' (Sjostrom, H. & Nilsson, R, 1972)...

one is a lawyer the other a research chemist, it's not in any way 'animal rights', it is an investigation into what happened - very interesting. well worth a read if you can get a copy.

I'm not trying to 'blind' you with any anything, what would be the point - anyway, not sure to what figures you refer can you explain, thanks.

cont...

Re 'alts', pointing to a source which gives the answer re scientific human-relevant methods is hardly 'obsufcation'.

They are fact, replacements exist and they are scientific and human-relevant.

There are many aspects too such as protecting the status quo, lack of will / funding, the process for approval, assessed against non-relevant-to-huma
ns animal tests...

but we have not yet finished dealing with the issue of animal rights and the scientific validity or not of vivisection...surely best to settle those before adding to the list :)

However, I urge every to look up microarrays , the HuREL (Human RELevant) microfluidic circuit, and microdosing , they will give an idea of why it is impossible to describe them here...

and why we so desperately need to end experiments on animals and instead invest our precious resources in such technolgy.

By the way, do you know that animal tests themselves haven't been validated?

"a fairly simple request like that, the less convincing you sound."

As above it isn't simple at all though, too much to explain here...and anyway of course it is illogical to so suggest that the validity or not of vivisection is determined by the existence or not of alternatives :)

So, getting back to the crux of the issues, are you able to give a basis to exclude animals from the circle of compassion that does not also justify racism, sexism etc?

Also, can you tell us of any scientific case for vivisection? I've yet to hear one.

"You are still discriminating against a body of people on what may be genetically determined factors and what YOU hold to be their way of behaviour as opposed to their actual behaviour."

No they are not being discrimated against any more than serial rapists and murderers are being discriminated against...

their self-interests do not outweigh the fundamental rights of their potential / real victims, the paedophiles, the serial rapists and murderers have the problem, unfortunate for them but it is not the responsibility of their victims, whom you seem to forget are individuals too.

I'm at a loss how to explain it to you - let's try this...why do you think they are arbitrarily discriminated against, what exactly is the arbitrary discrimination?

"So I repeat my assertion, if you have the right to dictate and discriminate against them on the basis of a fixed condition they had no choice over, then you are saying that the power to discriminate against groups is valid."

They are not being discriminated against on the basis of their condition...their potential / real victims are also individuals who have rights, their fundamental rights far, far outweigh any claim to the right to sexual gratification.

"If it is a congenital condition, the sheer psychological trauma involved in coming to terms with it must be a form of suffering."

Do you not see though that no-one has inflicted any such condition upon them, yes it is unfortunate for them but it's the fault of no-one else, no-one else did it to them...

some people are born with a defective heart - do you honestly think they are they the victims of arbitrary discrimination because another, healthy, child isn't killed to steal their heart for a transplant?

"As you are still pushing home the same rhetorical questions as previously. I would answer the first "recipricocity".If a bengal tiger, a rat or a flea was to open its circle of compassion to include me then I have no objection to doing likewise. "

I've explained in a previous post why your
recipricocity argument fails....so you've given no such basis yet....want to try another answer? :)

"As to the second
www.pro-test.org puts the case better than I could."

I've yet to hear Pro-test give any scientific case for vivisection for medical research...

I've previously looked very carefully at their website to find any scientific case for....no such there.

Please though do post the page link or copy / paste if you can find any such on their website.

"Well Peter Singer believes in aborting disabled foetuses. I think that answers that point fairly succinctly."

That's Utilitarianism for you...I think you might be suprised to know that I don't know any ARAs who share Singer's Utilitarian view :)

I believe in 'inherent value', that every individual who is the 'subject-of-a-life' has inherent value.

Tom Regan argues this, that each individual (who is the 'subject-of-a-life') has a life that matters, is irreplaceable, to that individual.

"If potential humans are to be regarded as disposable, then why not lab rats" ?

As above I don't know any ARAs who agree with Singer on Utilitarianism, however,
because the rats in labs are not 'potential', they have been born...

born-humans have rights that are denied to born-animals on a purely arbitrary basis.

"However the important thing is that you believe that, for the sake of broader society, the use of legislative power is acceptable and that the rights of certain groups can be trodden on if general opinion holds it necceesary."

I haven't agreed that though, you are putting words in my posts that I haven't typed :)

"I am afraid I remain unconvinced by this parrallel between animal and human rights."

Then you must know upon what basis you are excluding animals from the circle of compassion etc - so tell us what it is :)

"Putting the life of a rat on the same level as that of a human slave is ludicrous."

You think that only because you see rats not as the unique, sentient individuals they are but as an inferior group....

remember that it wasn't too long ago here that 'society' considered putting the life of a slave on the same level as that of a white man as ludicrous...

just the same old 'superior / inferior', same old 'my preferred group' ethics...it's arbitrary discrimination and that is wrong.

Abolition was opposed as rights for animals is opposed now...but that too will change, it is inevitable :)

"Even if we take the relativistic assumptions ...(as a basis, humanity comes first"

Why though exactly?

"You have still to provide an alternative that will meet the medicinal needs of humanity..."

As I've said replacements do exist, are being used, if we stopped putting vital resources into experimenting on completely different species they could go to scientific, human-relevant methods which would benefit every patient.

"The scientists I know all look forward to the day when such things will be unnesscary."

Are they vivisectors?

"There is a major funding gap between research funding for animal research and research into non animal research which needs to be equalised."

Well at least we agree that replacements need far more funding :)

"So, given your comments regarding Mandela, do you believe it to be impossible for anybody to say they care about the plight of Palestinians unless they show their commitment by blowing up "infidels"?"

I didn't say anyone has actually engage in strategic violence themselves, you said such lost support for the cause of AR, I was saying that anyone who stops supporting a just-cause because they don't like something another campaigner did doesn't really believe in the cause itself.

"Have we really abolishd slavery? Or have we just simply stopped calling it such? I don't see much difference between companies getting cheap produce by underpaying foreign workers or using children. It's the nature of economics."

You know what I meant though but wow, I think that's two things we agree on now! .

Back to paedophiles, again you agree with me that certain groups need to be kept in their place by the arbitrary use of power if it benefits a greater majority.

No, not by the arbitrary use of power, to protect the fundamental rights of citizens.

"I feel the same way about animal labs."

That animals have to be 'kept in their place'? Their 'place' is clearly not in a cage in a lab, they are not 'designed' to be in cages in a lab...yes we can and do force them to be...but that is simply tyranny.

But lets broaden the argument,lets take this animal rights farrago to its ultimate extreme .

It's not 'extreme' to extend rights to others, ruthless oppression is extreme.

Where does that leave those of us who love a nice juicy steak every now and again? To be bundled off to prison to be deprogrammed?"

Well that will be up to the cute, fluffy kittens who'll be running the world ;)

"Would the same apply to a lion attacking and eating a gazelle? How would you enforce that?"

It doesn't need any such enforcement, They are in their 'world' here on our shared planet.

"Right" and "Wrong"?? In whose judgement? By what scale?

You asked me to define morality, that's what it is...but we have an inherent sense of right and wrong, fairness and injustice etc, because of this we have had much moral progression over time and that will continue...

we already know what is right and wrong, we just don't apply it objectively and consistently.

"You have already contradicted this concept by saying that killing a flea in self defence is justified, so is killing animals for human convenience right or wrong?"

I haven't contradicted it, the principle of self-defence applies as it does with humans...

because killing a human in self-defence is justified it does not follow that therefore it is justified to kill a human for convenience.

"If it is right to kill a flea to defend oneself then it must also be morally right to kill an animal if some potential greater good has been acheived."

Think about it though...by that logic it would be ok to poison, mutilate and kill humans for medical research!

"Right" and "Wrong" are highly subjective concepts as your point about slavery makes clear.

No, I said that something is still immoral even if the society at the time does not recognise / acknowledge that.

This means that any "moral" system is also going to be arbitrary if it uses such simplistic reductionism as a starting block.

Morality isn't arbitrary, the powerful of the day use their power to discriminate in an arbitrary way.

I can accept that a rat may be sentient but whether it has free will or not is another matter.

Their minds are their own, their bodies are their own - just as your mind is your own and your body is your own. We don't 'own' them, they are not our 'property', they exist here on our shared planet in their own right.

"Personally I share Schopenhauer's view that everything is governed/dominated by an instinctive will to exist rather than rational will, and that only mankind is aware of that fact (and feels the full misery of it)."

Well 'life is suffering' for animals in labs etc.

"He opposed vivisection on those grounds but also bigged up plants as well as was consistent with his outlook".

Plants are good, however, in our treatment of others we must consider morally relevant characterists.

So no, I don't accept that animals have free will, a Boa Constrictor or a Bengal Tiger is governed by instinct not rational choice.

Just because they kill, to survive, does not mean they do not make decisions about when, where and other things in their world.

You put paedophiles on the same level as murderers which isone and the same thing ethically.

I wasn't assigning levels I was testing the validity of your argument by changing the group.

"As for the lame comparisons with the threat from Nazi Germany."

It wasn't a 'comparison' I was asking you a question....you haven't answered...

"It is singularly absurd to compare some guy in a white suit conducting Chloresterol research in a laboratory with Hitler invading Poland!!"

I didn't 'compare' them, I was reminding you that it was scientists, not ARAs, who create and push testing unborn children, and scientists, not ARAs who experimented on Jews.

"Whilst writing this, have been looking across at the big soppy furry bundle of feline curled up in a corner of the sofa purring away.

What rights does she need? A good feed, lots of cuddles and somewhere to sh-t mainly."

The right not to be kept in a cage, the right not to be exploited, abused, mutilated, killed etc.

Your cat has you, she is very fortunate, the cats in labs are not...cats need rights because some humans abuse their power and harm, maim and kill them...not because the cats pose any threat to them but 'because they can'.

"I can't somehow see her as being a particularly political
animal."

Perhaps she's working undercover :)

Anyway, nor are toddlers political animals but they still need rights :)

I would hate it if something happened to her,

I know......please though think of the cats in labs too - they are just like your cat - the only difference is your cat is with a human who cares, they are in the hands of humans who will systematically harm, maim and kill them - just as your cat needs you the cats in labs need you too.

"but then I also like a good lamb stew so I am really in no position to quibble."

Many of those against vivisection on scientific grounds eat meat...

and March is 'Veggie Month', anyone can get a free pack from Animal Aid...

I mean, it wouldn't hurt to try it for, say, a month...see how it goes...could be like an experiment, bit of research...might even like it, many do, never know till you try :)

www.veggiemonth.com

Sue, I am afraid we are never going to agree on this issue so its best to call an end.

It is fairly clear that you have strong feelings on this issue but I am afraid the leaps in logic, catagoricals errors etc are too numerous for me to contend with.

We are on different planets. You support terrorism, I believe it to be morally abominable in all circumstances.

You see no essential difference between a flea moving in accordance with pure instinct and a rational being able to make informed choices based on intellectual reasoning. I argue that the latter is what makes humanity different from animals. You believe (presumably through the idea that intelligence, like the capacity to feel pain is relative) that they are one and the same and that anybody who differs is a fascist oppressor.

You argue that testing is unreliable from human to human but from animal to human is even more unreliable and you refuse to allow tests to be carried out on you. By that logic, we might just as well give up testing and drugs manufacturing altogether as computer models are equally unreliable.

You say that many people who support the abolition of vivisection eat meat. That makes them hypocrites of the highest order. If your logic is taken to its ultimate point then the abolition of the meat trade is also on the cards. Why are you not badgering them about "circle of compassion" or whatever touchy feely concept your on about? You defend the right of a rat in a lab and support those who firebomb, assault, maim and send razor blades through the post to scientists yet stand shoulder to shoulder with people who have no problems with billions of lambs being slaughtered every day for food.

That very fact reduces your argument to mere posture and pretence.

I have considerable respect for people who have taken a stand against animal cruelty through adopting vegetarian diets, refusing animal tested drugs etc. In my opinion it is the ONLY real way to signify a willingness not to exploit animals for whatever purpose.

So I can respect your choice whilst vehemently disagreeing with your logic and outlook.

I look forward to a time when animal tests are no longer neccessary. The dependence on them will peter out as new MORE RELIABLE technology is found.

I'm afraid, until then, they are, in my opinion, a neccesary evil.

Sue wrote:
\"Right\" and \"Wrong\"?? In whose judgement? By what scale? You asked me to define morality, that\'s what it is...but we have an inherent sense of right and wrong, fairness and injustice etc, because of this we have had much moral progression over time and that will continue... we already know what is right and wrong, we just don\'t apply it objectively and consistently. \"You have already contradicted this concept by saying that killing a flea in self defence is justified, so is killing animals for human convenience right or wrong?\" I haven\'t contradicted it, the principle of self-defence applies as it does with humans... because killing a human in self-defence is justified it does not follow that therefore it is justified to kill a human for convenience. \"If it is right to kill a flea to defend oneself then it must also be morally right to kill an animal if some potential greater good has been acheived.\" Think about it though...by that logic it would be ok to poison, mutilate and kill humans for medical research! \"Right\" and \"Wrong\" are highly subjective concepts as your point about slavery makes clear. No, I said that something is still immoral even if the society at the time does not recognise / acknowledge that. This means that any \"moral\" system is also going to be arbitrary if it uses such simplistic reductionism as a starting block. Morality isn\'t arbitrary, the powerful of the day use their power to discriminate in an arbitrary way. I can accept that a rat may be sentient but whether it has free will or not is another matter. Their minds are their own, their bodies are their own - just as your mind is your own and your body is your own. We don\'t \'own\' them, they are not our \'property\', they exist here on our shared planet in their own right. \"Personally I share Schopenhauer\'s view that everything is governed/dominated by an instinctive will to exist rather than rational will, and that only mankind is aware of that fact (and feels the full misery of it).\" Well \'life is suffering\' for animals in labs etc. \"He opposed vivisection on those grounds but also bigged up plants as well as was consistent with his outlook\". Plants are good, however, in our treatment of others we must consider morally relevant characterists. So no, I don\'t accept that animals have free will, a Boa Constrictor or a Bengal Tiger is governed by instinct not rational choice. Just because they kill, to survive, does not mean they do not make decisions about when, where and other things in their world. You put paedophiles on the same level as murderers which isone and the same thing ethically. I wasn\'t assigning levels I was testing the validity of your argument by changing the group. \"As for the lame comparisons with the threat from Nazi Germany.\" It wasn\'t a \'comparison\' I was asking you a question....you haven\'t answered... \"It is singularly absurd to compare some guy in a white suit conducting Chloresterol research in a laboratory with Hitler invading Poland!!\" I didn\'t \'compare\' them, I was reminding you that it was scientists, not ARAs, who create and push testing unborn children, and scientists, not ARAs who experimented on Jews.

An inherent sense? What objectivity is contained in that? What are the grounds for measuring who's inherent sense is the Ultimate Right one?

Please supply some tables showing this inherent sense being quantified and objectified.

While your at it please supply scientific tables and data demonstrating the comparative stress and pain suffered by animals undergoing medical testing proceedures. There must be a scientific basis for your assertions after all.

You must have the statistics and figures to back up your cruelty assertions. Otherwise your entire case is based on pure nonscienific projection.

So please show me a chart detailing the measured response of a rat undergoing a Chlorestrol related test, or the measurement of the distress of an ape in Tipu Aziz. I will accept measurements of heartrate, neurochemical change data etc as quantifiable and acceptable data.

After all you are claiming the scientific high ground here so such data should be ready to hand.

As for plants and vegetables, I believe , with Schopenhauer, that they do have a very basic level on sentience in the fact that they are capable of responding to stimuli like light.

It is therefore equally a one sided powerbased relationship to eat and exploit them.

Plants do register distress, they wilt or lose leaves, they may not have a nervous system but they can suffer. If your concern is with suffering then you are excluding them on highly dubious grounds.

"Sue, I am afraid we are never going to agree on this issue so its best to call an end."

Ok, I'll just answer your two posts then...

Re 'leaps in logic, catagoricals errors etc' there are none in my arguments though...

you haven't been able to answer the question I've asked re basis to exclude animals...

and, although I have posted the basis of the scientific case against, you have not posted any basis for any scientific case for...I think that speaks volumes and I urge you to consider why is that.

"We are on different planets. You support terrorism, I believe it to be morally abominable in all circumstances."

There is a difference between terrorism and freedom-fighting - are you against freedom-fighting?

"You see no essential difference between a flea moving in accordance with pure instinct and a rational being able to make informed choices based on intellectual reasoning."

What then exactly is the 'intellectual reasoning' that leads you to believe animals should not have rights?

Also, what is the ''intellectual reasoning' that leads you believe there is any scientific case for vivisection?

I argue that the latter is what makes humanity different from animals.

You ignore though that many humans are incapable of making 'informed choices based on intellectual reasoning'...

so, either you believe that they too should be treated as the animals or your argument fails.

You believe (presumably through the idea that intelligence, like the capacity to feel pain is relative) that they are one and the same and that anybody who differs is a fascist oppressor.

I am not saying other species and humans are one and the same...clearly they are not any more than human men and women etc...

however, different does not mean inferior it just means different...

and in our treatment of others we must consider what is morally relevant...not what sex, colour, religion, species etc is the individual / group but what is morally relelvant.

"You argue that testing is unreliable from human to human"

It's not merely an argument I'm making, it is a matter of hard, documented fact.

"but from animal to human is even more unreliable"

Again, it's not merely an argument I'm making, it is a matter of hard, documented fact.

"and you refuse to allow tests to be carried out on you."

I said on the basis of the results from animals because I know those results are invalid for humans and therefore can be dangerously misleading.

By that logic, we might just as well give up testing and drugs manufacturing altogether as computer models are equally unreliable.

Not so and of course computer modelling is not the only non-animal test, there are many and they are far superior to testing on completely different species.

Also, just a point of logic, even IF there were no scientific, human-relelvant replacements, which there are but if, that would not alter the fact that the results from other species are invalid, and dangerously misleading, for 'humans'.

"You say that many people who support the abolition of vivisection eat meat. That makes them hypocrites of the highest order."

No, I said against vivisection on scientific grounds (ie not moral grounds).

"If your logic is taken to its ultimate point then the abolition of the meat trade is also on the cards. Why are you not badgering them about "circle of compassion" ...That very fact reduces your argument to mere posture and pretence"

You've made an assumption which is incorrect, as I am for animal rights I'm vegan and do also campaign against the meat industry and all other legal animal abuse.

"I look forward to a time when animal tests are no longer neccessary. The dependence on them will peter out as new MORE RELIABLE technology is found."

Animal testing isn't 'necessary' because as a matter of documented fact it doesn't 'work' for humans...

I am sure you genuinely want medical progress, safe and effective treatments / cures...so I urge you to read 'Sacred Cows and Golden Geese' (R Greek, Continuum 2000), it explains far better and in far more detail that I can here and it is fully source referenced throughout.

"I'm afraid, until then, they are, in my opinion, a neccesary evil."

I'm glad you acknowledge they are evil. As above, I urge you to read that book, or, for example, 'Vivisection or Science' by Professor P Croce...

Alan, I urge to please read one of the above books, this is too important an issue for humans for people to just dismiss arguments because of from which 'side' they are.

"An inherent sense? What objectivity is contained in that? What are the grounds for measuring who's inherent sense is the Ultimate Right one?"

Logic, objective testing of arguments (ie with different groups as the aggressors / victims), consistency in application.

"Please supply some tables showing this inherent sense being quantified and objectified."

It is shown in the moral progression throughout the ages, we have the Declaration of Human Rights, humans do inherently have the capacity for compassion and empathy, we do have 'emotional intelligence'.

While your at it please supply scientific tables and data demonstrating the comparative stress and pain suffered by animals undergoing medical testing proceedures. There must be a scientific basis for your assertions after all.

Can you supply same showing eg a human baby or child, or a severly brain-damaged human etc, would suffer more in a lab than an animal?

So we don't need same in respect of animals only - I've previously said, no moral relevance between suffering of child and 40-year-old scientist - because suffering is suffering and pain is pain...

evolutionary necessity, biology and simple observation prove that animals can feel pain and suffer...

and the Scientific Procedures (Animals) Act states re the experiments causing "pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm" to the animals.

"You must have the statistics and figures to back up your cruelty assertions. Otherwise your entire case is based on pure nonscienific projection."

No, as above re evolutionary necessesity, biology, observation...and remember ditto to you unless you can show statistics and figures to support that in labs humans would suffer / feel pain more than animals...

but as above suffering is suffering, pain is pain, and also as above, the A(SP)A law you support actually states same.

After all you are claiming the scientific high ground here so such data should be ready to hand .

Such data is not necessary to prove that the results from other species cannot be scientifically / safely applied to 'humans', other scientific, documented data already does that.

As for plants and vegetables, I believe , with Schopenhauer, that they do have a very basic level on sentience in the fact that they are capable of responding to stimuli like light.

So photographic paper has a very basic level of sentience??

Also, when talking of fleas you claim I cannot know and therefore presume but you can know re plants??

"Plants do register distress, they wilt or lose leaves, they may not have a nervous system but they can suffer."

Wilting and losing leaves are not measures of 'distress' though - amusing you (wrongly) accuse me of being anthropomorphic when I state animals - who do have nervous systems can feel pain and suffer but then you assert plants, who don't have same, can suffer!

"If your concern is with suffering then you are excluding them on highly dubious grounds"

No, rather than face the fact you cannot answer the question re basis to exclude animals you illogically assert, against all the scientific evidence, that plants have characterics which you have previously denied animals have :)

Yes- animals suffer, but we're higher up the food chain, bigger than most of them and cleverer.

That's the way the 'real' world works.

No-one gets up in the morning, puts on their coat and decides to spend the day 'torturing' animals, as the bunny huggers would have us believe.

If I was ill and benefitted from medicine developed from animal testing, sod the bunnies pal.

Hi Dan - "Yes- animals suffer, but we're higher up the food chain, bigger than most of them and cleverer. "

All arbitrary factors, we are moral agents, that means taking into account morally relevant factors.

"That's the way the 'real' world works."

About time it stopped then for all our sakes -
your 'bigger and cleverer' would justify any human atroctity - which is why we must stop preaching 'superior/inferior' ethics, stop preaching and practicing arbitrary discrimination.

"No-one gets up in the morning, puts on their coat and decides to spend the day 'torturing' animals, as the bunny huggers would have us believe."

It is a choice though, vivisectors choose to make their living from doing it.

"If I was ill and benefitted from medicine developed from animal testing,"

I've news for you...rabbits are not just small humans.

Each species IS different at the cellular and molecular level which is where disease occurs...

one tiny, tiny, tiny variation between individuals of the SAME species mean that one human will have eg CF another won't etc etc.

These tiny, tiny, tiny differences between individuals of the SAME species affect how a drug interacts with that individual's body-system -

mean a drug will work in one human not others, mean a drug will harm one human not others...

it is not the number of similarities which matter, it is the tiny, tiny, tiny differences which are crucial.

Also, the animals in labs NEVER have the human disease, instead similar, only similar, symptoms are artificially induced...

so the causal mechanisms are different so the pathology is different.

I'm sure you genuinely want safe and effective treatments and cures...so I urge you to read one of the books I've mentioned in previous posts.

"sod the bunnies pal."

Would you sod other humans too though?...if not why not exactly?

Here are just a tiny few differences between rats and humans

www.pcrm.org/resch/a
nexp/rats.html