Heartland

http://www.guardian.co.uk/animalrights/ ... 89,00.html

now i'm not a huge fan of the "direct action" approach adopted by the so called "animal rights extremists", but this new measure that blunkett's trying to introduce sounds a little like infringement of civil liberties...

i know that on the surface they are trying to stop individuals being "terrorised" by protesters, but i can't seem to feel a hell of a lot of sympathy for the victims, given their career choice

Yeah but what about the infringement of the civil liberties of the people being protested against? What about their families who have absolutely nothing to do with the career path of their father/mother etc? I don't think anyone on HL would appreciate protesters outside their homes. There are better places to do it. Blunkett says he's doing it to stop stalking too, surely this protesting is a form of stalking. I'm not keen an animal testing either but in this case I have to agree with what has been proposed.

My ex-boyfriends mate refused to speak to me when I first started going out with him as I worked in a chemist and she was anti-vivisection etc. When she actually bothered to ask me about it (after about 6 months) she found out that to me it was just a job and that I wasn't really a nazi at all.

Hmm, very emotive subject but ultimately the law is the law. Maybe we can accuse politicians of changing laws for their own political ends and to pander to big buisness but that's another subject.

As for 'career choice', unemployment is such is some areas that some people don't have the luxury of 'choice'. Should therefore the individual be victimised and intimdated for trying to earn a wage by doing a job that someone else objects to?

Except that if the law is the law, ultimately it becomes impossible to change bad/unjust/divisive laws.

Therefore homosexuality remains illegal, there is little legal protection for women in the workplace and kids aged eight work in coalmines. If we actually had any coalmines for them to work in, of course.

And does a lack of "career choice" justify pursuing a career in drugs dealing, housebreaking, loan-sharking (and especially the enforcement thereof), arms trading, pimping, assassination/hired thuggery etc? I understand your point, JB, but it rather depends where you draw your lines.

I'll quit stirring now

sorry quiffy but at the end of the day the rights of one person being saved from an untimely and painful death due to some (currently) incurable disease outwiegh the rights of all the mice, rats, dogs and monkeys it takes to progress medical science to the point where such diseases are treatable.

these extremist animal rights nutters should be treated in exactly the same way as any other terrorist organisation. that's what it boils down to. these people terrorise scientists (and their families) merely for engaging in activities that they feel are "wrong" or maybe even "immoral". puts them in exactly the same camp as good ol' osama in my book.

lock 'em up. throw away the key. oh, and deny them access to any medical care if they happen to become ill.....

andymackem wrote:but it rather depends where you draw your lines.

Exactly, but like it or loathe it, isn't that we have a democratically elected government? To draw those lines?

JB: So personal morality is irrelevant. If the government says it's OK, then it's OK? My country, right or wrong?

I don't think I can agree with you. We're moving away from the original topic, but you're assumption that voting every few years absolves us from any further responsibility to scrutinise the social impact of what a government does fundamentally undermines the electorate's role in a functional democracy. So there

To illustrate my point: a number of people believe the actions of this democratically elected government were wrong, and quite possibly illegal, in respect of Iraq and the war on terror. I'd guess most people on this board would disagree with the invasion and if I trawl through the archives I can probably back that up.

According to you, though, since our government drew that line for us and said it was acceptable, the debate is over. That attitude would kill any sort of active democratic process, which I'm guessing isn't your intention.

@ RJ: only from your perspective. It's understandable to place a greater value on human life than on animal life, but it is justified? Does our exalted evolutionary status not give us a greater responsibility to "lesser" species? Having created compassion and empathy, are we not morally obliged to use it as widely as possible?

JB wrote:

andymackem wrote:but it rather depends where you draw your lines.

Exactly, but like it or loathe it, isn't that we have a democratically elected government? To draw those lines?

Dunno how it goes in England, but never, EVER use the words 'democratically' and 'elected' so damn near to each other...

On topic, I think that, when there is an alternative, you should look for one. But research is expensive. And you need money for that. If no-one is going to sponsor your astonishing new invention of testing cosmetics on a brick wall, then you're doomed to throw it all in the bin...

That's reality.

And to all animal activists (we have them here, too. They are called GAIA, short for Go Away Immediately, Arseholes), instead of fighting a terrorist war, do it in a civilised manner. It is slower, but the chances you make a complete fool out of yourself are not immediately visible

And always remember: If animals have the same feelings as humans, why does the fox not eat carrots instead of chicken? (tongue so firmly in cheek I'm gonna bite the end off)

IZ.

andymackem wrote:@ RJ: only from your perspective. It's understandable to place a greater value on human life than on animal life, but it is justified? Does our exalted evolutionary status not give us a greater responsibility to "lesser" species? Having created compassion and empathy, are we not morally obliged to use it as widely as possible?

i think the key word there is "justified" andy. i'd happily argue that animal experimentation is justified when it's done on medical grounds. i agree that we should treat all animals with as much compassion as possible and take steps to avoid all unnecessary suffering whatever the eventual fate of any creature. but the reality is that it is sometimes necessary to cause an animal suffering in an effort to reduce the suffering of our fellow man and i really don't have a problem with that.

others may disagree and they have every right to do so. what they don't have a right to do is terrorise those with an opposing point of view and that's what is at the crux of this (proposed) legislation. to my mind it really is no different to the activities of any other terrorist organisation. the only distinction is that a lot of wooly-minded, wet, liberal, do-gooders tend to be happier to be seen as being on the side of the cute ikkle animals than being on the side of islamic fundamentalists or irish nationalists.

I think that the animal rights lobby has (in a way) shot itself in the foot over the whole medical-experimentation / vivisection issue. By using these "terrorist" tactics* they have lost a lot of the sympathy that they did have in the general public.

This has had at least one effect: that the issue over wearing fur, which ten years ago had been decisively "won" by the animal-rights "side", (and which is far more clear-cut in terms of morality IMO) is now being "lost" again with more and more fashion houses using fur.

There are more arguments against using animals in medical testing than the purely ethical/moral arguments as well. While it is true that broadly speaking all mammals are biochemically very similar, there are anomalies. If aspirin had ever been tested on animals, the likelihood is it wouldn't have passed as it is very toxic to rodents; also there is the case of Thalidomide, which received as thorough testing as any other drug currently available, yet the potential for birth-defects was never picked up.

* I am not entirely happy with the way that the word "terrorist" is used in this context. The tactics of the ALF always used to be to damage property without putting any humans at risk. Hence setting off sprinkler systems in department stores selling fur coats, breaking into labs and "liberating" (stealing) the animals from inside at nighttime.

Having said that, unfortunately it seems that "used to be" is the operative phrase here.

Oh and while I'm here, can I just pick up on this point:

andymackem wrote:Does our exalted evolutionary status not give us a greater responsibility to "lesser" species?

I can see that, from the quotes around "lesser" that your tongue is probably somewhere in your cheek with this, but I wonder what gives us the idea that we are the pinnacle of evolution? From the point of view of an alien, life on this planet would look very much like 90% bacteria, 10% everything else...

@ andymackem & markfiend: have either of you ever read "k-pax" by gene brewer?

markfiend wrote:I am not entirely happy with the way that the word "terrorist" is used in this context. The tactics of the ALF always used to be to damage property without putting any humans at risk.

so it's okay if i burn your house down if i make sure you're not there at the time? you don't have to physically harm people to terrorise them - intimidation works at least as well...

Quiff Boy wrote:ever read "k-pax" by gene brewer?

i have but it was a long time ago. care to remind me of the significance here?

RicheyJames wrote:

Quiff Boy wrote:ever read "k-pax" by gene brewer?

i have but it was a long time ago. care to remind me of the significance here?

this:

markfiend wrote:

andymackem wrote:Does our exalted evolutionary status not give us a greater responsibility to "lesser" species?

I can see that, from the quotes around "lesser" that your tongue is probably somewhere in your cheek with this, but I wonder what gives us the idea that we are the pinnacle of evolution? From the point of view of an alien, life on this planet would look very much like 90% bacteria, 10% everything else...

thats pretty much what the main character in the book, prot, thought. he was an alien from a peace-loving and very advanced planet. he considered us an arrogant species for assuming we're the most advanced, and that other species were of lesser importance.

i agree wholeheartedly with the character's opinion.

i agree wholeheartedly about our arrogance as a species. i'm currently reading bill bryson's rather excellent a short history of nearly everything which really puts things into perspective (especially for someone as ignorant of science as myself). only last night i read that not only do we have no real idea how many species we share the planet with we're not even all that sure how many we've discovered.* and to that the frighteningly short amount of time that the human race has been around for (in geological and evolutionary terms) and i find it incredibly arrogant that we can begin to think that anything we do has any sort of long-term impact on the planet we happen to call home.

having said all that i'll still always plump for a bacon butty rather than a bean-burger...

*bit reminiscent of rumsfeld's unknown unknowns which is apposite in a discussion touching on issues of civil liberties and terror tactics.

RicheyJames wrote:so it's okay if i burn your house down if i make sure you're not there at the time? you don't have to physically harm people to terrorise them - intimidation works at least as well...

Point taken.

The problem is that on this thread you're using logic; a most unfair tactic when arguing against a viewpoint based largely in an emotional response!

Quiff Boy wrote:ever read "k-pax" by gene brewer?

in context, that name's a great pun

@ MF: If the alien was looking through a microscope, yes. If we assume our alien is a similar multi-celled largish species, perhaps not. The prevelance and impact of bacteria is inarguable, but their immediate perceptibility (is that a word?) is rather less so. But you correctly read my quote marks. My exalted opinion of the value of humanity is derived purely from the fact that I'm human, and quite keen on us as a species. Especially if we carry out our broader social responsibilities.

@RJ: Aren't we hitting on the great flaw in liberalism here? You (and I, if I'm not being argumentative) would agree that animal research is justified, but understand that others may feel squeamish about it and have a measure of sensitivity towards their feelings.

But the fanatic insists that harming animals is a great, unrightable wrong ... greater than the threat of disease (after all, if you don't die of one thing, you'll die of another). Going back to my point about a broader social responsibility (in the planetary sense), it is hardly illogical to argue that the suffering of individual humans who actively engage in animal testing, or are complicit by their relationships with those who do, is less relevant when set against the suffering of the animal kingdom as a whole.

In a way it's simply the mirror image of your own viewpoint, and as such is quite difficult to argue against without ultimately being forced to assert that your value set is inherently superior to someone else's.

Hence, liberalism is doomed. Cardigan wearers will become extinct and the Guardian will go out of business. Discuss!

RicheyJames wrote:i agree wholeheartedly about our arrogance as a species. i'm currently reading bill bryson's rather excellent a short history of nearly everything which really puts things into perspective (especially for someone as ignorant of science as myself). only last night i read that not only do we have no real idea how many species we share the planet with we're not even all that sure how many we've discovered.* and to that the frighteningly short amount of time that the human race has been around for (in geological and evolutionary terms) and i find it incredibly arrogant that we can begin to think that anything we do has any sort of long-term impact on the planet we happen to call home.

having said all that i'll still always plump for a bacon butty rather than a bean-burger...

*bit reminiscent of rumsfeld's
unknown unknowns which is apposite in a discussion touching on issues of civil liberties and terror tactics.

Just reading the same. It is fascinating.

RicheyJames wrote:and i find it incredibly arrogant that we can begin to think that anything we do has any sort of long-term impact on the planet we happen to call home.

especially when as a race, we're planning to bugger off and leave it behind at some point.


great book btw, very simplistic and therefore fun

RicheyJames wrote:...someone as ignorant of science as myself...

...the frighteningly short amount of time that the human race has been around for (in geological and evolutionary terms)...

You're not that ignorant if you're aware of the short time-span of human history when compared to the length of time the planet's been here. (Approx 4,000 years of written human history versus 4,000,000,000 years of Earth's existence. Equivalent to about 32 seconds out of a year!) Just look at this lot for sheer, willful ignorance of science

andymackem wrote:
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH

Hence, liberalism is doomed. Cardigan wearers will become extinct and the Guardian will go out of business. Discuss!

...but the argument seems not to be about the ongoing medical improvement, and the associated ethical debate but about lost economic opportunity and marketability of the industry external to the UK?

andymackem wrote:@ MF: ...My exalted opinion of the value of humanity is derived purely from the fact that I'm human, and quite keen on us as a species...

Well, yes. It is part of human nature to be anthropocentric. And in many ways there is nothing wrong with that. In fact I would argue that the furthest extremes of the enviromental movement are also being anthropocentric with a false dichotomy between "natural" and "man-made". Alleging that humanity and its works are not part of "nature's way" is as incorrect as "let's bulldoze the entire rainforest and to hell with the consequences". *shrug*. I'm losing track of what I'm trying to say here

andymackem wrote:@RJ: Aren't we hitting on the great flaw in liberalism here? You (and I, if I'm not being argumentative) would agree that animal research is justified, but understand that others may feel squeamish about it and have a measure of sensitivity towards their feelings.

Here we go. I'm quite happy to admit that the fact that I'm vegetarian is purely down to squeamishness

i think we've gone off on something of a tangent here. surely the argument isn't whether testing on animals is right or wrong as we've quickly proved that there's very little chance of any consensus on that point. what's really at issue here is to what lengths we as a society are prepared to sacrifice our civil liberties to restrain the act of a few extremists. at what point does protest become terrorism?

There are a few other factors to throw into the murky equation.

As has been said above, there's a growing library of medical evidence and opinion which suggests that animal testing has no scientific value. If that's the case (and it's rapidly looking like it is), then animal testing of medicine does nothing to stop disease or develop new (effective) medicines.

Then there's Lord Sainsbury: multi-millionaire, good mate of Tony Blair, and the government's Minister of Science, who has large vested financial interests in ... you guessed it, the vivisection industry (and GM crops as well).

The fact that the government's Science ministry (read "Lord Sainsbury") isn't debating the growing evidence about whether animal testing actually has any value, but is far more interested in mobilising the government spin doctors into making sure that the opponents of vivisection are all tarred with the same brush (damning the anti-vivisection argument by association) is evidently far more to do with his financial interests in seeing vivisection continue, than any more altruistic purposes.

I'm also worried by the sadly familiar situation of a government using the current atmosphere of fear of terrorism to try to attach the catch-all label "terrorist" to the political/financial opponents of its ministers.

By the way, the best quote on the civil liberty vs security argument still comes from Benjamin Franklin:

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security"