You may have read recently how the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) recently caused $20-30,000 damage to the house of a scientist, because the scientist’s work includes animal testing. Actually, the scientist was lucky: the ALF really wanted to burn the house down but settled instead for merely flooding the place. Nice.
This is the same ALF that PETA co-founder and President Ingrid Newkirk wrote about approvingly in her book Free the Animals! The Untold Story of the U.S. Animal Liberation Front and Its Founder, ‘Valerie’. According to Amazon.com, Newkirk "is one of the few people with firsthand knowledge of the ALF and is personally acquainted with the organization's founder." Furthermore, Newkirk:
…gives interviews to ALF’s publications, supports the legal defense efforts of ALF criminals (with PETA’s money), has been subpoenaed in regard to her ALF connections, and has even been accused in court documents of participation in the ALF arson of a Michigan State University research lab.
I think it’s safe to say that Newkirk would have approved of this recent terrorist attack on a scientist’s home. Newkirk is so strongly opposed to animal research that she has said:
even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, "we'd be against it"
So she’s uncompromisingly opposed to animal testing. Well, as it turns out, not so much. Not when she needs modern medicine, at any rate. You see, recently she broke her wrist:
Just as I was setting out to launch my new book, Let’s Have a Dog Party!, I met a wet floor and went splat, neatly snapping the bones in my wrist. Ooh, the pain! Thank goodness for IV drips.
Thank goodness for IV drips. IV drips. That would be those same intravenous anaesthetics that were tested on rats, rabbits, dogs, cats and monkeys. Apparently she’s not opposed to that animal testing. So unopposed that she thanks "goodness" for it.
Now, you may say, Newkirk didn’t have a choice in this matter, or that Newkirk believes animal testing was unnecessary to develop these medications and procedures. Well, if you think that, I’ll just refer you to PETA’s Animal Testing page, that unambiguously states:
Send back items that you have from companies that test on animals...
From the comments to the PETA blog, I think we can assume that Newkirk is now aware that her painkillers were, in fact, tested on animals. So can we assume that she will now refuse (“send back”) any more painkillers? Or will she, like PETA Vice President and insulin (tested on dogs, rabbits and mice) dependent diabetic Mary Beth Sweetland, continue to enjoy the benefits of animal testing while supporting terrorist acts on the scientists who provide them?
I think we should be told.
Somehow I'm not surprised. It seems that people who are radically and ideologically opposed to progress of one sort or another have a willful disconnect when it comes to their own comfort/convinence.
As witnesses, I submit the creationists, who deny that evolution occurs, yet still line up for this year's flu shot, and the NASA opponent, who cry incessantly over the pittance spent at NASA, yet demand all of the products which have come directly from NASA missions.
Posted by: Sergeant Zim | November 10, 2007 at 12:03 PM
Well, consistency is exactly what sociopaths lack.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | November 10, 2007 at 05:08 PM
2 real quick comments... is it newmark or newkirk?
The special irony that i see if it's newkirk is that's a psuedo-dutch bastardization of "New Church".
I'm almost willing to bet it's not a real last name (as in it was given to immigrants because "Van Kirk" was too hard to log in their forms even though that's probably the original name)
But still, mildly funny to me.
Posted by: genewitch | November 11, 2007 at 04:15 AM
oh and another thing: Zim, love the name.
As far as your comment, i'd like to add a few things, since PETA is full of slippery slope crap. Anything you have in your house that comes from Japan you should send back. Because the only reason you have that stuff (at a decent price, no less) is because we totally annihilated their infrastructure in WWII. They had to rebuild from scratch, thus shooting them lightyears ahead of us in manufacturing and shipping processes (i'll provide some proof of this assertion if need be). Therefore why should you benifit from the deaths of the thousands upon thousands of people that died in those two explosions 50 years ago?
BOYCOTT JAPANESE PRODUCTS... FOR THEIR SAKE! REMEMBER THE FLASH!
P.S. as dastardly and crappy as the federal handling of the Louisiana disaster was (and the subsequent kick in the testes everyone here got when the media said 'in the california wildfire debacle we have learned from the disaster in new orleans, and are applying that knowledge to the aid of californians') - i still see a glimmer in the future of that heavily cultured, amazingly awesome part of the united states. They'll have to rebuild the infrastructure from scratch, and i see fiberoptics and floodproofing as a standard practice out here. Win, guys. Win.
Posted by: genewitch | November 11, 2007 at 04:22 AM
genewitch:
It's Newkirk. Thanks - typo corrected.
Posted by: Skeptico | November 11, 2007 at 08:39 AM
She probably rationalises it: if she didn't have painkillers, she wouldn't be able to concentrate on her crusade to save animals from the evil vivisectors.
Posted by: sophia8 | November 11, 2007 at 11:05 AM
oooo vivisection... we're literally one or two degrees away from a reference to you know who :-)
Posted by: genewitch | November 11, 2007 at 01:10 PM
Sophia8, Penn & Teller did an episode of Bullshit! about PETA, and Mary Beth Sweetland used that exact rationalization for her use of animal-derived insulin: her life's work defending animals is so important that it is worth the sacrifice of a few thousand pigs (not to mention the various animals the insulin was tested on) to keep her alive.
Posted by: Jeremy Henderson | November 11, 2007 at 01:22 PM
Sophia8, Penn & Teller did an episode of Bullshit! about PETA, and Mary Beth Sweetland used that exact rationalization for her use of animal-derived insulin
Sweet! Do I qualify for for the Million-Dollar Challenge?
Posted by: sophia8 | November 13, 2007 at 07:35 AM
Dear Skeptico,
This sort of attack illustrates less about the hypocrisy of the Animal Rights movement, than it does the disingenuous apathy of its detractors. If YOU really care about animals, then help figure out how to solve the problem of the modern industrial death machine, and play your solution against PETA's. If you DON'T, then go play chess with your computer or something, rather than detracting from people who are trying to solve the problem.
Yours,
Cpl Ferro
Posted by: Cpl Ferro | November 13, 2007 at 05:41 PM
Skeptico replies to Cpl Ferro
Re: This sort of attack illustrates less about the hypocrisy of the Animal Rights movement, than it does the disingenuous apathy of its detractors.
What is disingenuous>? What is apathetic?
I think you’re talking to the mirror.
Re: If YOU really care about animals, then help figure out how to solve the problem of the modern industrial death machine, and play your solution against PETA's.
I think animal testing is necessary, so I’m not sure PETA has a “solution”. Science is the only proven way to arrive at solutions, so I’d certainly stop terrorist attacks against scientists. I think that plays pretty well against PETA’s nonsense.
Re: If you DON'T, then go play chess with your computer or something,
Why should I?
Re: rather than detracting from people who are trying to solve the problem.
What a joke. I’m detracting from people who resort to terrorism. And pointing out their hypocrisy – ie they enjoy the benefits of animal testing while supporting terrorist acts on the scientists who provide them. You, on the other hand, just disingenuously detract from people who do have solutions. Thanks for playing though.
Posted by: Skeptico | November 13, 2007 at 06:13 PM
Sounds like a perfect solution fallacy: Because we don't have a magical way to test stuff without harming animals, we should just screw everything and go back to the stone age.
Sorry, but lab animals are the best solution we have so far. Come back when you come up with another worth assessing.
Oh, and please don't be apathetic to crimes like terrorism.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | November 13, 2007 at 07:33 PM
Dear Skeptico,
The Animal Rights movement is motivated about far more than just lab testing. If the latter were the end of it, you might have a case. Harping about PETA's inconsistencies, or perceived inconsistencies, does nothing to stop the real, unnecessary suffering inherent in the entire agribusiness system, and helps people continue to ignore that suffering as if it were unavoidable and acceptable. It is neither.
If you really wanted to stop terrorism you would attack the antihumanism inherent in their position, and work to illumine both yourself and them to a level whereby humane solutions to animal suffering and the rage produced in good people by despair are attainable, but, you can't, because morality is not a product of science, not science as you conceive it.
The General Welfare principle as the chief component of the sovereign nation-state is a solution to the olicharchism that enslaved mankind for all of recorded history. That is not a product of science. Art is more powerful than science, because artistic truth, akin to that principle of statecraft, is how we reorganise society in a superior form. Science? A source of tools, tools that are only used for bad ends when art's power is extinguished.
Would that animals pray for their overlords, who by evidence of their apathy towards the origin of their food and the biosphere are less than animals in their relationship with Beauty.
Cpl Ferro
Posted by: CplFerro | November 14, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Skeptico replies to Cpl Ferro
Re: The Animal Rights movement is motivated about far more than just lab testing.
Maybe. But my complaint was against people who commit terrorist acts against scientists who do animal lab testing. So the rest of your comment was completely irrelevant to the points I made, in addition to being barely coherent and pretentious waffle.
Posted by: Skeptico | November 14, 2007 at 06:49 PM
What freaks me out most about people like PETA's followers is that they never seem to place the same regard on human rights as they do animal rights. Their hypocrisy pales into nothing when placed alongside the fact that they care more for animals than their fellow human beings.
Anyone who is more willing to kill for lab rats than to prevent mass rape in the Congo is worthy of nothing but disgust.
And did anyone take a look at the website the corporal linked to? Makes Bestie look positively sane. Apparently, neo-conservatives are part of a British scheme to reclaim the USA. I shit you not.
Just wish someone had told me.
And another thing.
How do PETA feel about carnivores? Would they be happier if I hunted all my food myself? We are just as much an animal as a lion, we just look better in jeans.
And why don't they really put it on the line for animals and volunteer themselves to be tested upon instead?
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | November 14, 2007 at 09:01 PM
How do PETA feel about carnivores? Would they be happier if I hunted all my food myself? We are just as much an animal as a lion, we just look better in jeans.
They'd be happier, yes, but only if you did it without weapons. This kind of nutcase believes that animals who kill their own food using the adaptive features they have evolved for that purpose (claws, teeth, high speed sprinting, ets.) are morally superior to humans killing their own food using the adaptive features we have evolved for that purpose (large brains, opposable thumbs, tool use, etc.)
Or that's what one of that ilk once preached to me, anyway. Not that it matters. We've seen that don't do what they say, when it's inconvenient. Which answers your other question.
Posted by: Chris C. | November 15, 2007 at 04:38 PM
Here's a solution: How about all of the dumbass PETA/ALF terrorists step up and put their money where their mouths are. We'll perform testing on them instead.
JC
Posted by: JC | November 16, 2007 at 08:58 AM
Babycakes! (short story by gaiman i believe.)
And ya, the rest of his post was pretentious waffle. i mean i can sling the BS verbiage, but he applied it with a trowel.
Posted by: genewitch | November 17, 2007 at 08:56 AM
What is terrorism, really? Is locking an animal in a cage, torturing her for weeks, months ore even years and then killing her terrorism? I think so.
If we accept the premise, faulty or not, that some animal testing is necessary to benefit human civilization, then should we accept that all animal testing is necessary? Is it necessary to perform animal testing for things that have already been proven? For cosmetics to benefit only human vanity? The fact is that over 95% of all vivisection performed is not beneficial in any way other than monetarily.
Unfortunately the corporations who profit and their allies in popular media have been so effective at slandering animal rights activists and lumping them all together with the most radical elements of their cause that the message is lost.
The truth is that animals should have rights and should be considered with compassion and not contempt. If we as a society decide that animal experimentation is necessary, it should at least be regulated. As it is now, there is only a one-sided debate with the people who try to defend animals being drowned out by the misinformed majority who just parrot what they heard on some dumbed-down tv show. And the vivisecters answer to no one, really. It is a multi-million dollar industry that profits on the enslavement and torture of helpless animals who suffer constantly without knowing why.
It is easy to pick on Peta, they make themselves easy targets and their tactics are often questionable. It is also easy to wave the "T" word around. It would benefit many of you on this site to actually research a bit about what we as a society do to animals, the cost on human health and the environment, and, I believe, our own humanity.
Posted by: sassamatazz | November 19, 2007 at 12:02 PM
sassamatazz:
"The fact is that over 95% of all vivisection performed is not beneficial in any way other than monetarily"
Can you support that fact with a citation?
Posted by: Skeptico | November 19, 2007 at 01:05 PM
More succinctly: if you want to blame someone for throwing in with fringe radicals, blame PeTA, and specifically Ingrid Newkirk. If you want to be upset at people being lumped in with fringe radicals, then get upset at the normal, sane, reasonable PeTA members whose contributions, numbers, and membership enable the crazies like Newkirk to promote and support a radical and violent agenda.
No, the contention is that animals should have rights. If it were truth, it wouldn't be possible for reasonable people to disagree on it. Now, I agree that we should treat animals with compassion, but "rights"? Exactly what "rights" should animals have? Do those rights (like human rights) come with certain responsibilities? Do we expect animals to respect the rights of other animals? Of humans? How do you enforce those rights?Animals, by virtue of being alive, deserve to be treated with some measure of dignity, respect, and compassion. "Rights" however is a much, much trickier question.
Yes it should. And that's why we (in the United States) have the Animal Welfare Act, which regulates the testing on vertebrates and is enforced by the USDA. Way to frame the debate, chachi. More precisely, there are people who recognize the importance of animal testing to science (and medicine in particular), people who want better attention to animal welfare, and a league of first-class nutters who scream and yell to anyone within the range of hearing that any use of animals--be it for clothing, food, medicine, or companionship--is categorically wrong, comparable to the Holocaust and slavery, and should be stopped with violent action. To suggest that PeTA's concerns have been drowned out is ridiculous; to the contrary, their concerns have been largely ignored because with them there is no middle ground, and there is little reason. What rational thing can you say to a 'farmers are Nazis' video or a "Milk Gone Wild" ad?If PeTA would come back down to planet Earth, maybe their positions would merit some reasonable consideration. As long as they're out crusading against any and all uses of animals and animal products, however, any legitimate points they might raise are drowned out by their own overwhelming tide of crazy.
Except the USDA, the Humane Society (and other such organizations), and if they're scientists, their own ethics boards and commissions of that nature. What is this multi-million dollar industry? "Vivisection" is not an industry (unless, I suppose, anatomy-curious multimillionaires are indeed roving the countryside looking for willing dissectors). If you're going to protest something, at least be clear on who your target is. As you proved in the beginning of your post. But while "caging and torturing animals" isn't using violence to incite fear to change policy, "trying to burn down a scientist's house so that he'll stop doing animal testing" is. I would include you in that group who would benefit from some research; in this case, on what policies govern animal testing, on the purposes and benefits of said testing, on the definition of terrorism, and most importantly, on the sort of actions and conduct supported by PeTA's ranking members. It would behoove the whole animal rights movement to recognize that this isn't just a case of evil humans torturing puppies and kitties for perverse pleasure. There are real problems, real questions, and real issues here that the PeTA rhetoric glosses over entirely.Posted by: Tom Foss | November 19, 2007 at 02:58 PM
I have a compromise:
Animal rights activists stop annoying animal testers, and animal testers minimize suffering in animal testing. Happy?
Posted by: Corey | November 24, 2007 at 12:27 AM
That second part has been a key issue for years; testers are constantly trying to minimize suffering, and experiments that cause unnecessary suffering are often shut down and the involved testers are reprimanded. The compromise, therefore, is hollow.
And besides, flooding somebody's house (while threatening to light it on fire) is a little worse than annoying. Here's my proposed "compromise:" animal testers keep doing what they're doing, and animal rights activists like those guys get thrown in fucking jail.
Posted by: Akusai | November 25, 2007 at 03:52 PM
let's not forget the basic flaw with vegheads' arguments - if the issue is killing for food, they're guilty of the same through vegetable consumption (plants are still living, after all).
If it's about the pain involved, kill animals painlessly.
Either way, their argument for vegetarianism on these grounds is defeated.
Humanity will likely never go vegan. PETA and its terrorist-supporting ilk should probably accept this, and work within the bounds of eliminating suffering, not death.
Posted by: Luzid | December 01, 2007 at 03:50 PM
Posted by: Tom Foss | December 01, 2007 at 04:17 PM
Tom Foss:
"Such as? It's not like anyone's out there dropping marmots from the Tower of Pisa to test gravity."
Shhh! I just got a grant to perform exactly this experiment. It's biophysics.
Posted by: Escuerd | December 05, 2007 at 05:15 PM
More seriously, I suspect that most complaints about "testing things that are already proven" are by people who don't understand the importance of replication to the scientific method (or that "proof" is a mathematical concept rather than a scientific one).
Posted by: Escuerd | December 05, 2007 at 05:22 PM
So Ingrid Newkirk is not perfectly pure and 100% free of any connection to past animal suffering. So what? Does this mean that her defense of animals is without merit? It's easy to be consistent on the topic when you eschew any merit in considering the benefit of animals.
I feel continually alienated from the skeptical community, which is so clearly right about religion, evolution, quackery, pseudo-science, etc., but so rarely takes a public stand on general decency.
My skeptical radar detects blatant self-interest and a religious sense of entitlement and "domain" over animals in the scientific community's carte blanch endorsement of animal research. Isn't at least some of the research shoddy,
pointless, redundant, corrupt, cruel? Disclosures of such stem almost exclusively from outside the scientific community.
It is ironic that religionists and scientists, opponents in many arguments, profit equally by promoting the myth of "Humans: Right or Wrong" in all dealings with non-human life.
Posted by: ThirdChimp | December 22, 2007 at 03:02 PM
ThirdChimp
Did you read my post all the way through to the end? What I asked was:
With the key bit bolded to make it easy for you..
Posted by: Skeptico | December 22, 2007 at 04:24 PM
Skeptico-
Yes- I did read your entire post. Thank you for making it easy for me by highlighting your point. Of course it's your blog (very impressive) and you get to frame the discussion, but I did respond to this very question with "So what?" I suspect that Newkirk and Sweetland will proceed as always, but I do not think this is a very important point.
I do not endorse slave labor, but wear cotton and consume sugar even though they were cultivated in the Americas with slave labor. If the The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment had yielded beneficial treatment and I contracted syphilis, I would no doubt take advantage of the results.
My response to your question was that personal contradiction/hypocrisy does not necessarily invalidate one's message.
My larger point, that my fellow skeptics are largely unconcerned with issues of decency, is characteristically unchallenged in your response.
Posted by: ThirdChimp | December 22, 2007 at 06:51 PM
My larger point, that my fellow skeptics are largely unconcerned with issues of decency, is characteristically unchallenged in your response.
Probably because it is total bullshit and demonstrably false.
Since you make the claim though, prove that the skeptical community is largely unconcerned with issues of decency. First though, prove that scientific animal testing is an issue of decency.
Or stop being a concern troll.
If the The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment had yielded beneficial treatment and I contracted syphilis, I would no doubt take advantage of the results.
It would appear we aren't the only ones who alledgedly have a problem with issues of decency then.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | December 22, 2007 at 10:09 PM
Invariably, yes. But this is not by design, and there are in fact checks set up to minimize all of this. What the hell is your point?
You're saying that people completely uninvolved with the scientific research know enough to determine whether said research is willfully cruel or already duplicated, and that these outsiders are the only ones to ever say anything? Care to provide something to back that up with?
This isn't an "us vs. them" thing, ThirdChimp; animal research saves animals, too.
Posted by: Skemono | December 22, 2007 at 11:58 PM
I can see ThirdChimp’s point. While it’s clear that these PETA ratbags (Australian slang for boring fanatics) are gobsmackingly hypocritical and should be condemned in the strongest terms for attacking scientists, I do wonder how far you can push the hypocrisy argument. If the requirement for an argument to be true depended on the arguer not being in any way advantaged by the object of his criticism, how could we ever criticise the government?
Having said that, I always welcome news of any family-values evangelical preacher caught snorting coke with a bloke in a feather boa.
Posted by: debbyo | December 23, 2007 at 12:32 AM
ThirdChimp, in regard to your question/accusation regarding the decency of scientists, can I ask what you mean by “decency”? From the context (correct me if I’m wrong) it seems to be in relation to taking a political stance on ethical issues? Is that right?
Posted by: debbyo | December 23, 2007 at 02:22 AM
Methinks some of you posters protesteth too much. As a skeptic myself, I frequently read skeptical literature and lay scientific articles. Asking me to "prove" my observations is a little like a creationist demanding proof of evolution. Where do I start?
By my observation, reports of animal neglect, abuse and illegalities in animal testing have been revealed by anti-testing people and groups. Ditto with human rights. There are many such disclosures and violations. Try Google. I believe that the burden of proof lies with those who disagree with my point. When have company or university testing lab officials ever disclosed improprieties or notified authorities over abuses in its experiments? Perhaps it has happened, but only the most "religious" of you would deny this point.
Also, in scientific/skeptical literature, I just haven't encountered much in the way of outrage or even reasoned discussion about animal rights, human rights (except for the Biblical rights of dominion over animals) or the periodic disclosures of animal abuse or illegalities in labs. What we get is fatass Penn Jillette (of Penn and Teller) easing our consciences, reminding us that PETA is "Bullshit."
If you are looking for an old-time cowboy movie in which the good guys wear white and the bad guys wear black, you're responding to the wrong poster. This "concern troll" (good one) is aware that some medicines and treatments have been developed using unwilling human "guinea pigs." But yeah, I use pharmaceuticals and you probably do, too. No, I'm not going to provide "proof" of this, either. Educate yourself (again, try Google).
Sometimes I can't tell the difference between anti-animal rights voices in the scientific community and creationists at a Kansas school board meeting. They're all so right.
PS: I too am entertained by the parade of religion hucksters "caught snorting coke with a bloke in a feather boa."
Posted by: ThirdChimp | December 23, 2007 at 08:15 AM
Skeptico replies to ThirdChimp
Your points would have some validity if PETA were just insisting on “considering the benefit of animals”, “general decency”, or the elimination of “pointless, redundant, corrupt, cruel” practices or “animal neglect, abuse and illegalities”. But they are not: they go much further than that. They want an end to all animal testing. All. No compromises. No consideration of the valuable research information lost. No discussion. No matter what the benefits nor how well regulated. So you are arguing against a straw man. And you are therefore the one doing the “framing”, not me.
Secondly, PETA supports terrorist acts against scientists. Terrorist acts whose purpose is to bring about the elimination of animal testing through the use of force and violence. I believe this is not acceptable. They have a right to protest and publicize their views and promote them by any legal means, but they choose to use illegal means. And that includes terrorizing individual scientists. I don’t agree with terrorism. I don’t see how someone who complains that skeptics are “unconcerned with issues of decency”, could simultaneously support terrorism. So, do you support terrorism? In which case, please explain how you can simultaneously argue for “decency”? Is terrorism decent? If you don’t support terrorism, please explain how you can support PETA and ALF, who utilize terrorism.
Re: I do not endorse slave labor, but wear cotton and consume sugar even though they were cultivated in the Americas with slave labor. If the The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment had yielded beneficial treatment and I contracted syphilis, I would no doubt take advantage of the results.
False analogy, because you are not telling people to “send back” cotton or sugar. PETA are telling people to “send back” any items from companies that test on animals. ANY items. And not just those tested on animals. Any items produced by ANY company that also tests on animals. You’ll find that arguing by analogy is usually a flawed method.
Re: My response to your question was that personal contradiction/hypocrisy does not necessarily invalidate one's message.
In this case it does because they are calling for actions (“send back” items), while not doing so themselves. That totally invalidates their call to send stuff back.
Re: My larger point, that my fellow skeptics are largely unconcerned with issues of decency, is characteristically unchallenged in your response.
Consider it challenged. In fact, consider it refuted: being opposed to terrorism is a position totally concerned with decency.
Posted by: Skeptico | December 23, 2007 at 11:57 AM
Skeptico-
I believe that PETA, not my point, is the straw man in this discussion. I'm not a member, don't represent them and don't believe in terrorism (and nowhere in my posts do I indicate otherwise). Happy?
We disagree on the value of analogy and the appropriateness of mine. My point is that all of us (with ethical concerns) are compromised, at least in some small ways, but that does not mean that we
should not hold or promote beliefs or calls for change.
Here's another bad analogy: most educated Americans are concerned about climate change and the human contribution to it. Most of us also burn oil. Some of us are calling for change. Many would embrace cleaner alternatives, while in the meantime continuing to burn oil. Never mind your fixation with Newkirk and PETA, this is how many also feel about animal testing. But this is not a sentiment commonly expressed in the skeptical/scientific community.
Since I have been subjected to the PETA litmus test question and have answered it truthfully, I ask you: Do you condemn illegal behavior involving animal experimentation in labs? Would you embrace alternatives if they could be made to be equally or more effective than animal testing? Do you place any value on the lives of animals? If so, do you act upon these beliefs? If you do, our disagreements are probably few.
Posted by: ThirdChimp | December 23, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Re: I believe that PETA, not my point, is the straw man in this discussion.
I don’t see how that makes sense, since PETA was the point of the original post that you were objecting to.
Re: My point is that all of us (with ethical concerns) are compromised, at least in some small ways, but that does not mean that we should not hold or promote beliefs or calls for change.
Call for change, yes. But don’t tell people they shouldn’t use products tested on animals while you use products tested on animals.
Re: Here's another bad analogy: most educated Americans are concerned about climate change and the human contribution to it. Most of us also burn oil.
But most of us don’t tell other people not to burn any oil, ever, while burning oil ourselves.
We also (most of us) don’t support terrorist acts against people who burn oil.
Those were the two areas where your analogy was false. And those were the two things I was complaining about in my post. So your analogy works everywhere except the two points I raised in the post that you are complaining about.
Re: Do you condemn illegal behavior involving animal experimentation in labs?
Of course.
Re: Would you embrace alternatives if they could be made to be equally or more effective than animal testing?
Yes. I don’t believe there currently are alternatives to all animal testing.
Re: Do you place any value on the lives of animals?
Yes.
Posted by: Skeptico | December 23, 2007 at 01:12 PM
Thirdchimp:
Methinks some of you posters protesteth too much.
So, still going to ignore the point that actual skeptics are demonstrably involved with issues of decency, despite your ridiculous assertion that they aren't?
Asking me to "prove" my observations is a little like a creationist demanding proof of evolution. Where do I start?
Actually, you're subsequent conduct is a lot more like creationists. Your observation is wrong, but you still maintain it isn't in the face of the evidence.
I believe that the burden of proof lies with those who disagree with my point.
Just like creationists. YOU claim that skeptics are unconcerned with issues of decency. The burden of proof is with you. But you avoid it.
I just haven't encountered much in the way of outrage or even reasoned discussion about animal rights, human rights (except for the Biblical rights of dominion over animals) or the periodic disclosures of animal abuse or illegalities in labs.
You really aren't looking very hard. However, you still haven't proven that skeptics SHOULD be outraged.
What we get is fatass Penn Jillette (of Penn and Teller) easing our consciences, reminding us that PETA is "Bullshit."
Oh yes I forgot, Penn and Teller speak for all of us, so we ALL agree with them.
If you are looking for an old-time cowboy movie in which the good guys wear white and the bad guys wear black, you're responding to the wrong poster.
Ooh, strawmen too.
But yeah, I use pharmaceuticals and you probably do, too. No, I'm not going to provide "proof" of this, either. Educate yourself (again, try Google).
Why would I need to use Google to educate myself about mine or your use of pharmaceuticals?
Sometimes I can't tell the difference between anti-animal rights voices in the scientific community and creationists at a Kansas school board meeting. They're all so right.
That's your problem then. And it does explain a lot.
You still haven't shown how scientific animal experimentation is a matter of decency.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | December 23, 2007 at 08:28 PM
Jimmy-
Let me preface my remarks by saying that I am really impressed with Skeptico and his blog. I wouldn't have wasted my time making (mildly?)unpopular arguments on a page in which I thought my ideas would be scorned or summarily dismissed. And my confidence has been endorsed by the mostly reasoned feedback. I believe that from some, there has also been some defensiveness.
For the sake of narrowing the scope of my point, let me distill it to this: I regularly read (and endorse) skeptical/scientific literature. A downside, as I see it, is frequent criticism of animal rights (and its activists), but few calls for "decency" in the treatment of animals.
You take my pharmaceutical remark out of context. I admit to using prescription drugs, despite the fact that research has, on occasion, used unwilling human "guinea pigs." Rather than cite examples, I suggest that one can find examples (of human guinea pigs) by Googling. I admit that my wording could have made this point more clearly.
Should we ever be outraged? I cannot speak for you, but here are some examples from the labs at Columbia (my alma mater) that outrage me(http://www.columbiacruelty.com/default.aspx ). If you defend this conduct as decent, we disagree.
You say that I haven't looked very hard for skeptical/scientific articles that decry and condemn animal abuse in laboratory experiments. Please direct me to some examples from any of the critical thinking/skeptical blog links on this page.
I am a little surprised that what I think is a fairly obvious point (i.e. skeptics as a group have not weighed in loudly on decency in treatment of animals), made to fellow skeptics, has inspired a degree of defensiveness. That's why I likened some of the feedback as "creationist," an admittedly dirty word in skepticspeak.
Posted by: ThirdChimp | December 23, 2007 at 11:12 PM
A downside, as I see it, is frequent criticism of animal rights (and its activists), but few calls for "decency" in the treatment of animals.
Which is not what you said originally:
but so rarely takes a public stand on general decency.
And:
My larger point, that my fellow skeptics are largely unconcerned with issues of decency, is characteristically unchallenged in your response.
This is not what you are claiming you said now. You specifically said skeptics are not concerned with general decency, this is demonstrably false.
It's interesting that you highlight that article.
Previously you said:
When have company or university testing lab officials ever disclosed improprieties or notified authorities over abuses in its experiments?
Yet the abstract for that article says:
But sorry, I don't get outraged. I save my outrage for human beings and their mistreatment.
You say that I haven't looked very hard for skeptical/scientific articles that decry and condemn animal abuse in laboratory experiments.
No I do not say that. Another strawman. Try rereading what both you and I have previously said.
Please direct me to some examples from any of the critical thinking/skeptical blog links on this page.
I'll direct you to any of those blogs, and you will find concern over issues of general decency, just like you said.
You seem to be retreating from your original position now, why is that?
I am a little surprised that what I think is a fairly obvious point (i.e. skeptics as a group have not weighed in loudly on decency in treatment of animals),
Really?
Here's a few related articles:
Look for animals eating animals
ERV talks about the need for animal experiments but limiting the number and the ethics involved
PZ weighs in.
Orac
Ryan too
There's a couple, try searching the JREF forums as well. Like I said, you don't appear to be looking very hard.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | December 24, 2007 at 07:32 AM
ThirdChimp,
Let me try to say just two things (but they will be a bit lengthy, sorry).
First, I am a total wimp when it comes to suffering. Whether it is human suffering or animal suffering, it doesnt matter. If I see an insect half squashed, limping along, I literally feel for it (and usually put it out of its misery). I know this emotional response I have to suffering sounds extreme, but it has always been that way with me. Once as a child, I took a gypsy moth worm (we were infested with them here in the north east) and held it underwater for a little while, you know like kids do. I felt so bad, I dried the stupid worm off. The wind came, and blew it into the water. Yes, I jumped in a saved it.
I realize this is ridiculous, it was just a worm, there were thousands of them, on our property alone. But I can't help the way it makes me feel when an animal suffers. I have tons of anecdotes about myself, but that is probably the one at my lamest.
So, you can imagine my feelings when I see hunters not kill on their first shot (or see them hunting at all), or animals are experimented on in ways that make them suffer.
Now let me confer part two here. I have a PhD in mechanical engineering. My PhD was on a biomedical application for the spine. We were working on ways to treat scoliosis better and to help the spine after trauma and do limb lengthening. The treatments were all similar.
Guess what. I made a few goats suffer. I killed a couple also. We drilled into their spine and installed screws into their vertebrae (they were asleep for this). Then we attached external devices that were used to position the vertebrae as we needed, while they were awake.
There is no way to test this on anything but animals. I would have prefered a monkey since they spend more time upright, and if we continued I'm sure we would have.
Did the technology go anywhere? not yet, they are still working on it. Were those goats wasted? Not at all, tons of learning about forces, biocompatability, the amount of displacement you can apply before causing paralysis, paralysis recovery and so forth was learned and published for everyone else to know all of which can be applied to our medicine, human medicine.
So when you show a link to a university that is using animals for experimentation, does it hurt to see them suffer like that? Hell yeah! But without knowledge of exact experiments, the hypotheses that are trying to be resolved, the experimental protocols and so forth, all you are doing is fear or hate mongering.
The great majority of the research, we need it. Its good for us as a species. Its generally not done in a way that will hurt the existence of the species (in fact, in most cases the animals are bred specifically for research).
Yes, we should try to ferret the doctors who are providing no value and still hurting animals, but to go after an entire department of a university without any data about exactly what the animals are being testing for and how they are being tested, is just ridiculous.
There was a claim about some monkey being on heroin for 23 years, as if that was a bad thing. There are tons of things to learn about long term effects of drugs, specifically opiates. I didnt see any problem with that, mostly becuase I dont know the specifics of the testing. But I can imagine a number of thngs worthwhile to understand that would require long term use of an opiate. Same with others who have the skulls open to accept invasing tooling, such as electrodes, or what not. Yes, it sucks. Yes, they probably suffer. How many humans are now not suffering because we can actually repair so much brain damage, excise tumors, understand exactly what parts of the brain do what and so forth as a result of research like that? Its an amazing amount of learning, and long term benefit that we get from this.
You (or at least that site you linked to) are saying something like: we should get rid of all dog training facilities because a few idiots are training their Pit Bulls to fight. (I know skeptico hates argument by analogy).
Anyway, thats my little rant.
Posted by: Techskeptic | December 24, 2007 at 09:45 AM
Jimmy-
I concede that my exact words were not identical in each line of my every post concerning my points. We can nitpick about that, but I believe that my point was pretty clear: I was talking primarily about decency in respect to laboratory animals (even though I did not specifically say "animals" in each line) and that in my observation skeptical literature has weighed in defense of decency. I know, I know- once again, these are not the exact words, ver batim, that I used before.
Please note that I believe that I qualified my statements in each case ("...few calls for decency...so rarely takes a public stand...are largely unconcerned." I understand that unanymity in a large group would be highly improbable (and I'm a skeptic myself). So I don't think that I specifically wrote that "skeptics are not concerned with general decency."
In the Columbia link, you are correct that it was an insider (Dr. Catherine Dell’Orto) who blew the whistle in one of the cited cases. She notified PETA.
Thank you for providing the links. The first two are the of the type I have rarely encountered in skeptical literature and to me, support your counterpoint to mine. Curiously, the third link begins with a line that is not inconsistent with my origional point(s). "The scienceblogs team seems to be forming a united front on at least one specific issue: in support of research in the face of animal rights extremists." Please do not claim that I am saying that line is exactly the same as my statement(s. I have seen mostly "support" rather than discussions of decency.
You reserve your "...outrage for human beings and their mistreatment." Fair enough, but the people I know who conscientiously weigh animal rights support people, too.
Oh, one last interesting thing. You mentioned the JREF page and forum. I do read it and I noticed an odd connection. The same Mehmet Oz, vice chair of surgery and professor of cardiac surgery at Columbia University, mentioned in the Columbiacruelty post is noted in the 2/18/05 James Randi newsletter (http://www.randi.org/jr/021805a.html) as an avid supporter of "...such 'complementary therapies' as hypnosis, 'therapeutic touch', guided imagery, reflexology, aromatherapy, prayer, yoga, and 'energy medicine,' and he encourages their use 'in combination with the latest surgical techniques.'"
Posted by: ThirdChimp | December 25, 2007 at 07:36 PM
Techskeptic-
I don't consider your post a rant at all. It's an honest response from someone who sees and feels both sides of a volatile issue.
I don't think that anyone's sensitivities to others' pain is wimpy or ridiculous at all. I am personally wary about people so jaded and desensitized that they don't think and feel as you do.
Your kind of commentary is exactly what I have not seen much of in skeptical literature and on blogs. I think that it is important to bring your kind of perspective into discussions.
As for the Columbia link, I provided it as an example of what outrages me. We may disagree on this, but I do not think that the research goals, however noble, justify violating the laws. As far as I could tell in the article, the violations were not necessary or approved aspects of the research.
"...but to go after an entire department of a university without any data about exactly what the animals are being testing for and how they are being tested, is just ridiculous."
Whether it is a school, police department, church or biomedical research facility, if systemic abuse surfaces, the good done is not a defense. If there was an internal chain of command for reporting abuse in the Columbia lab, the veternarian whistleblower did not trust it. She notified PETA.
Being a skeptic, I'm...well, skeptical that "The great majority of the research, we need it." I do not doubt your belief in this, but I do know something about the the way government research grants are issued and have noticed that in many fields (e.g. defense, education, medicine), there is an unholy revolving door connecting government and business jobs and some (please excuse the expression) genuine "pork" out there.
I am not trying to close down all of the world's biomedical research labs using animals. Really, I'm just a guy writing a few blog posts. I do admit that I think about animal research as I do about oil. I would like to see our use of both eventually replaced by better alternatives. I do not know if this will happen or if it is even possible, but I can dream. In the meantime, I would like to see lawbreaking polluters and animal abusers prosecuted.
Posted by: ThirdChimp | December 25, 2007 at 08:38 PM
Really, I'm just a guy writing a few blog posts. I do admit that I think about animal research as I do about oil. I would like to see our use of both eventually replaced by better alternatives.
Oil has some truly compelling alternatives, that we could switch to, with a real effort. Animal testing... I just don't see an alternative. There is simply no substitute for doing good medicine. as long as we are using animals that are no endangered, and breeding them for this purpose, I can't imagine a more moral solution (except creating a new life form, that responds immunologically and mechanically like a human but lacks a brain, but even then, won't you expect people to freak out about them just as much as the frogs kids dissect in high school and the monkey they experiment on in labs?).
We may disagree on this, but I do not think that the research goals, however noble, justify violating the laws.
Certainly I agree that there are laws iun place to protect animals and researchers, and they probably should not be violated. Perhaps I didnt peruse the site enough to understand which laws were being violated. All I read/heard was something to the effect of 'Can you believe they would do this horrible thing to an animal? Its wrong and should be stopped'. I didnt hear anything about illegal stuff (and again perhaps i missed it because I couldnt get past alec baldwins droning voice over).
and again, illegal in what way? Was something illegal becuase paperwork was not filled out right? grant money was used on the wrong thing? Would it have been legal if they used a chimp instead of an orangatang? This is something where the specifics need to be detailed instead of calling for the closure of a research facility. It has to be understood by all that yes, there are some extreme experiements that undoubtedly will cause animals to suffer. But we extend out lifespan by doing this while placing no danger to the species that we are experimenting on.
I really liked ERV's post on animal testing. Did you read it? someone linked to it here.
Posted by: | December 26, 2007 at 08:25 PM
ack, that was me, tech. Once again typekey fumbled my sign in.
Posted by: Techskeptic | December 26, 2007 at 08:58 PM
Thirdchimp:
I concede that my exact words were not identical in each line of my every post concerning my points. We can nitpick about that, but I believe that my point was pretty clear: I was talking primarily about decency in respect to laboratory animals (even though I did not specifically say "animals" in each line) and that in my observation skeptical literature has weighed in defense of decency. I know, I know- once again, these are not the exact words, ver batim, that I used before.
Methinks Thirdchimp doth protest too much.
Please note that I believe that I qualified my statements in each case
Perhaps. But after you realised your original point was indefensible and needed to climb down.
So I don't think that I specifically wrote that "skeptics are not concerned with general decency."
Except when that is specifically what you wrote:
Curiously, the third link begins with a line that is not inconsistent with my origional point(s). "The scienceblogs team seems to be forming a united front on at least one specific issue: in support of research in the face of animal rights extremists." Please do not claim that I am saying that line is exactly the same as my statement(s. I have seen mostly "support" rather than discussions of decency.
Of course, if you ignore everything else the post links to, then the post seems to support your watered down argument.
Oh, one last interesting thing. You mentioned the JREF page and forum. I do read it and I noticed an odd connection. The same Mehmet Oz, vice chair of surgery and professor of cardiac surgery at Columbia University, mentioned in the Columbiacruelty post is noted in the 2/18/05 James Randi newsletter (http://www.randi.org/jr/021805a.html) as an avid supporter of "...such 'complementary therapies' as hypnosis, 'therapeutic touch', guided imagery, reflexology, aromatherapy, prayer, yoga, and 'energy medicine,' and he encourages their use 'in combination with the latest surgical techniques.'"
And your point is? I know as a skeptic you wouldn't be trying some form of fallacious argument/reasoning here, so?
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | December 27, 2007 at 06:01 AM
I believe that the burden of proof lies with those who disagree with my point.
Ok. I say that all males other than me are homosexual. If you disagree, the burden of proof is on you.
My response to your question was that personal contradiction/hypocrisy does not necessarily invalidate one's message.
This is incorrect. What you're thinking of is the inverse of this. All religious people are insane, because look at the ones that get on the news, snorting coke with gay prostitutes! - is an invalid argument (by the fragment of logic you're using) However, someone who says one thing but does another is a hypocrite. And hypocrites don't deserve to be listened to.
Never mind your fixation with Newkirk and PETA, this is how many also feel about animal testing. But this is not a sentiment commonly expressed in the skeptical/scientific community.
Another failure. Just because we don't (or at least i don't) fall for PETA's BS campaign for animal rights does NOT mean that i am unconcerned about animals. You have the worst logic in this thread, currently.
Do you condemn illegal behavior involving animal experimentation in labs? Would you embrace alternatives if they could be made to be equally or more effective than animal testing? Do you place any value on the lives of animals?
All of these are really really baiting. "have you ever tried sugar, or PCP?" I wouldn't want to know anyone who could answer "no" honestly to any of those questions. But you follow up with:
If so, do you act upon these beliefs?
Why would i have to act upon them? i act upon other things that upset me. i don't have time to organize a rally for animal rights. This doesn't make me any less decent of a person. there's only so much any one person can do. Least of which is join the People Endorsing Terrorist Acts camp.
Being a skeptic, I'm...well, skeptical that "The great majority of the research, we need it." I do not doubt your belief in this, but I do know something about the the way government research grants are issued and have noticed that in many fields (e.g. defense, education, medicine), there is an unholy revolving door connecting government and business jobs and some (please excuse the expression) genuine "pork" out there.
Ok so you're skeptical. That doesn't give you any "juice" in a discussion about anything, though. Skeptics that people take seriously use Logic and Facts (marvelous facts!) to back their refutations up. Not just (and i unbolded this) empty placating statements that don't mean anything. "if i were you, i'd invariably feel the exact same way you do" IS A CLASSIC example of how to diffuse a situation that is going towards hostility without LYING. of course you'd feel the same way. Of course you believe that what he states as his beliefs is true! He said them already! Waste moar time, IMO. Then you pull a classic "fast one". Note the word in italics. "but". You just said "ignore what i said already" which means you DON'T believe his stated ideas. Then you go on to say you know something of how the government works. That's fine. You can say that. I can ignore it. It's not based on factual evidence.
One thing i've noticed about Woo and woo-like arguments is that the woo-er never "has time to fill in all the details". They never seem to be able to muster the infinitesimally small amount of effort to back their statements up. What do you think we do when we respond? We take some time out to refute your claims. We provide links to evidence. Which generally goes ignored. Because it's not evidence that you want to hear. Congratulations, you're close minded.
Also, thirdchimp, you made a few other references that i am not going to copy and paste: That we need to educate ourselves, that we were similar to religious folks and creationists, and that we aren't aware of the facts.
This is all run of the mill woo-talk. Please. Entertain me more.
Posted by: genewitch | December 27, 2007 at 03:56 PM
Jimmy-
So I don't think that I specifically
wrote that "skeptics are not concerned
with general decency."
Except when that is specifically what
you wrote
Not true. I wrote "but so rarely takes a public stand on general decency.." "So rarely" is the qualifier I used.
I only mentioned the Dr. Oz connection as a general point of interest. His name came up in two, distinctly different areas related to the discussion (skeptical literature and decency in relation to animals). I wasn't trying to make any point with him. If I were to speculate, I'd say that his treatment of animals and beliefs are aberrational among medical researchers and he would not be an example of any point I am trying to make.
I did concede that some of your links support your point that decency regarding animals is discussed; however, I still think that "support" of animal testing and hostility to animal rights in skeptical/scientific blogs and literature seem to greatly outweigh considerations of decency. I do regard some of the commentary in this stream of posts as more considerate than what I typically read elsewhere.
Posted by: ThirdChimp | December 27, 2007 at 08:52 PM
Techskeptic-
I am not a biomedical research expert and you have experience in this field; however, I have certainly read about many potential alternatives to animal testing. You seem to be unaware or unconvinced of this. I do not claim that there is a present alternative to all present animal testing. Here's a few links:
http://www.allforanimals.com/alternatives1.htm
http://www.pcrm.org/resch/anexp/ (scroll down for alternatives)
http://www.peta.org/factsheet/files/FactsheetDisplay.asp?ID=87
Posted by: ThirdChimp | December 27, 2007 at 09:07 PM
skimmed mine? or still responding?
Your three sites listed there... Those aren't peer reviewed, and they preach to the choir. i can make a website for the abolishment of crackerjacks, and then write whatever the crap i want to about abolishing them. It's not peer reviewed, and only other crackpots that think that crackerjacks are bad for some reason would be using them to back up their theories on some skeptic's blog.
Posted by: genewitch | December 27, 2007 at 09:21 PM
to be honest i was really hoping for refutation of my "all males are homosexuals" red herring. Damn.
Posted by: genewitch | December 27, 2007 at 09:26 PM
genewitch-
I believe that the burden of proof lies with those who disagree with my point.
Yes. I said that have seen little discussion of decency in respect to lab animals in skeptical literature. Rather than respond "Yes there is," or "prove that there is little of this," Jimmy_Blue, for one, provided some examples to support his point and refute mine. Your "homosexual proof" would be a far more complicated point to support or refute.
Hypocrites don't deserve to be listened to? I'm guessing that you don't give many the time of day. Al Gore burns more oil for his home than some neighborhoods. Does this mean that he is wrong about the human impact on climate change? No. He may be incorrect, but being a hypocrite does not make him so.
I realize that this stream of posts is long and it might be easy to lose track of the context of the questions and comments, but I asked Skeptico "Do you place any value on the lives of animals? If so, do you act upon these beliefs?" after he asked me if I support terrorism. Given that we answered each other, I am assuming that we both believed this to be a fair exchange and hardly baiting. And your PCP analogy is even stranger than your homosexual proof. There is nothing misleading or dishonest about my question (as is inherent in your PCP question). If one values the lives of animals, he/she might logically act upon it in some way(s).
I am not spewing placating statements to try to "diffuse" anyone or anything. I do have empathy for other people and try to "put myself in their shoes." Your suspiciousness about genuineness seems projective.
And because I agreed with another poster about being entertained by religious hucksters being exposed, where do you get that I am saying that "all religious people are insane?" What?
In the event that you are as naive as you claim to be about the government monies being distributed for anything other than noble and sensible reasons, here's a few links. Of course, one person's idea of waste or corruption is nearly always supported as important by others.
http://www.akdart.com/sports.html
http://www.akdart.com/warpage8.html
http://www.akdart.com/edu4.html
http://www.impactpress.com/articles/febmar02/cigs2302.html
I am not looking for any "juice" for being a skeptic. It's called disclosure. I acknowledge that I value animals (human and non-human) and I am a skeptic. At least one other poster has also identified some personal background for the purpose of disclosure and enlightenment (and I think it is valuable).
Yes, when people dissent with strong emotions and inane arguments, it reminds me of creationists at a Kansas school board meeting. If the shoe fits, wear it.
Perhaps you confuse civility with dissenters whose points I respect with weakness. Rest assured that this is not the case. I do listen to rational arguments from many positions and weigh them. My problem with your post is not that you disagree with me (who here doesn't?); it's that you have not made one coherent point.
Posted by: ThirdChimp | December 27, 2007 at 10:54 PM
I am not spewing placating statements to try to "diffuse" anyone or anything. I do have empathy for other people and try to "put myself in their shoes."
Nice strawman. i didn't say you didn't empathize. What i said was your statement about "i don't doubt your belief" didn't actually SAY anything. If you put yourself in someone else's shoes, you'd invariably have to believe the same things they did.
I wasn't quoting you about the religious zealot, i was showing you how your logic was flawed. Pay attention now cause this is tough to understand. You can't say that all of a type of thing is like the most unique of that thing. You can however say that NOT ALL of a thing is like the unique thing. You can't say that all religious people are insane zealots. You can say, however, that not all environmentalists are hypocrites. Your rebuttal about how al gore uses more oil but is a spokesblahblah blah is irrelevant. I don't listen to Al Gore about environmental issues. I'm not a sheep. I listen to people who have dedicated their lives to studying effects and symptoms of an environmental nature.
I believe that the burden of proof lies with those who disagree with my point.
Yes. I said that have seen little discussion of decency in respect to lab animals in skeptical literature. Rather than respond "Yes there is," or "prove that there is little of this," Jimmy_Blue, for one, provided some examples to support his point and refute mine.
Here's the problem, that i encapsulated with my "all males other than me" bit: You came onto a skeptical forum. You then made a blanket statement (also known as a broad generalization). You then said that we have to disprove it.
Allow me to give other, similar examples of what you are doing there. "All germans hate jews!" Ok, fine. someone may believe that. However, even if 14 people in whatever forum that was said on were german or of german descent said "uh, i don't hate jews" that's not going to be enough proof. Because for some reason, woos believe that we have to disprove their stupid blanket statements that have no basis in reality.
The burden of proof rests with the person that is going against the flow; beating to the tune of a different drummer; railing against normalcy. I know you won't understand this. And i know you'll somehow find a way to ignore my points - which are fine - and instead strawman the language and style of my arguments. how do i know this? because you already did.
To refute your point itself, rather than your pisspoor logic and arguing skill; allow me to say this rebuttal:
In my opinion, skeptics are the most compassionate, feeling, moral, ethical, and socially responsible people on the planet as a group; alongside atheists, anarchists, and anyone who doesn't believe in just believing for the sake of believing - no matter what idea is being discussed.
If it really is just "your opinion" then the argument is over. I gave all the proof that you did, and my statement means more - it took a lot more thought to make that statement than it did to write yours.
thanks for playing though.
Posted by: genewitch | December 28, 2007 at 09:04 AM
genewitch-
"What i said was your statement about "i
don't doubt your belief" didn't actually
SAY anything. If you put yourself in
someone else's shoes, you'd invariably
have to believe the same things they
did.
Did it ever occur to you that if I thought I was talking to a lobbyist for the biomedical industry, I might doubt not only the veracity of his statement, but his own belief in it? The poster I was responding to came across to me as honest and sincere, but I did not agree with him. Thus, my response. Very complicated.
If you put yourself in someone else's
shoes, you'd invariably have to
believe the same things they did.
Not true. Empathy involves trying to understand another's perspective and does not necessarily involve literal agreement.
I never said or implied that any outlier represented his larger group.
Your rebuttal about how al gore uses
more oil but is a spokesblahblah blah
is irrelevant. I don't listen to Al
Gore about environmental issues.
Whether or not you listen to Al Gore is irrelevant. The point is that personal hypocrisy does not necessarily negate the merit of one's stated beliefs.
"All germans hate jews!"
This is another of your absurd analogies. Nowhere did I write “all” in any of my observations/opinions. Did I make general observations? Yes. People often do in discussions. Others may agree, support, disagree or refute the claim(s).
The burden of proof rests with the
person that is going against the flow;
beating to the tune of a different
drummer; railing against normalcy.
Oh really? This is what I hear from religionists. “Prove that there is no God. The burden is on you because you are part of a small(unpopular)group that doesn't understand faith.”
“...skeptics are the most
compassionate, feeling, moral,
ethical, and socially responsible
people on the planet as a group;
alongside atheists, anarchists, and
anyone who doesn't believe in just
believing for the sake of believing -
no matter what idea is being
discussed.
Based upon my experience, I am receptive to this opinion. We skeptics debate our differences and do not issue fatwas, condemn others to Hell or conduct Inquisitions when we disagree. I have also read that relative to the general population, admitted atheists are greatly underrepresented in the prison population. I am not sure about the level of humanitarian work or sensitivity to animal rights by skeptics vs. others, although I would guess that that skeptics at least equal the non-skeptic norms.
Of course, if I were you responding to your statement, rather than address the idea, I might blather: “Skeptics that people take seriously use Logic and Facts (marvelous facts!) to back their refutations up. Not just (and i unbolded this) empty placating statements that don't mean anything.”
thanks for playing though.
The pleasure has been all mine.
Posted by: | December 28, 2007 at 06:37 PM
Thirdchimp:
Not true. I wrote "but so rarely takes a public stand on general decency.." "So rarely" is the qualifier I used.
I think you have missed my point, and I will explain why shortly.
How is this any different, in practise, to saying that skeptics are not concerned with general decency? Especially given your climbdown from "general decency" to "I was talking primarily about decency in respect to laboratory animals."
What exactly do you consider to be "so rarely"? In practical terms, is it any different to "skeptics are not concerned with issues of general decency"?
My point, even if inelegantly expressed originally, still stands:
You claimed that skeptics are unconcerned (in practical terms) about general decency, this is clearly false.
More specifically however (and this is the point you seem to have missed), my point was that your original claim was "general decency", regardless of "rarely" or "not at all". It was not "decency in respect solely to the treatment of animals". You have focused on the wrong issue.
"General decency" is the issue, not the amount of, or lack of, it. Your original claim was not qualified in any way to suggest you were talking only about animal laboratory testing, and you specifically wrote "general decency".
That point is demonstrably false, and you have retreated from it ever since. Admit it was wrong and move on.
I still think that "support" of animal testing and hostility to animal rights in skeptical/scientific blogs and literature seem to greatly outweigh considerations of decency.
In what way would discussion of the reasons for animal testing, or support of those reasons, not be concerned with the morality of the testing?
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | December 29, 2007 at 09:22 AM
Back in the new year to lay this down for thirdchimp, in case they ever finish licking their wounds:
You said that religionists et al use "but you can't prove it, so[...]" Yes, but they use it in the same way you did (perhaps in an inverse way). What i said is that the burden of proof rests squarely on your shoulders as the one making a bold claim. All other arguments that have been presented to you are null and void because...
BEHOLD!
The Latin maxim necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit explains the rule that "the necessity of proof lies with he who complains."
it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven.
QED, QEF, CQFD, WWWWW, and Proven With No Enduring Doubt.
Posted by: genewitch | January 02, 2008 at 03:55 PM
Well, it seems to me that many "animal rights" advocates complain about the treatment of farm animals; I'd love to know how many of them have actually worked on a farm for any length of time.
PETA clearly has no use for us animal welfare volunteers. I have spent 14 years rescuing dogs from shelters and re-homing them, and have worked with groups who are barely a blip on the monetary scale. PETA has a $31 million annual budget, and manages to kill over 90 percent of all animals they take in, many of whom are never offered for adoption, and are immediately put to death. This is backed up in many places, the most notable being the court case last year when PETA employees obtained animals under false pretenses, killed them in one of PETA's vans, and dumped the bodies in a dumpster behind a grocery store.
Furthermore, PETA legal representatives have stated in open court that PETA would prefer that a group of elephants be killed rather than have them relocated to an animal preserve.
And the assertion that Mary Beth Sweetwater's life is more important than my Father's or your sister's is not only hypocritical, is is arrogant beyond belief. And yes, it blows holes in Ingrid Newkirk's assertion that,"...even if it resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it [animal research]."
I do believe that if all of PETA's arguments were followed to their logical conclusions, the Earth would be devoid of all animal life. There would be no humans, mammals, reptiles, birds, etc. How can anyone take seriously the arguments of people that want to wipe us from the face of the earth?
Posted by: k9dancer | April 03, 2008 at 12:59 AM
I just hope anti animal rights people will someday realize that there is a real and huge difference between testing scientifically to help animals and humans, and poring Draino down the throats of dogs or dripping chemicals into rabbits eyes and forcing primates to inhale cigarette smoke in order for major corporations to cover their asses with their ridiculous warning labels and "new and improved" claims. Can we all at least agree that animals should not be caged for life, scared daily, inflicted with pain continuously and treated as lifeless trash. And if you can't agree to that, then do you really care about human suffering at all, unless of course it is your own? One more thing, if you are naive enough to believe that the regulations in place to police the suffering of lab animals are really followed, then you are the dream come true to these corporations looking for the next idiot to believe their so called "new and improved" ads. Sadly it is all about money, the more tests they run the more claims they can make, the more the products fly off the shelves.
Posted by: Christine Martishius | April 15, 2008 at 02:36 PM
The fact that there are people abusing the system is not an argument for abandoning the system. It's an argument for better oversight and enforcement of the regulations.
I'm curious as to the overlap of corporate and scientific research in this matter, though. Corporations might be wont to flaunt the ethical regulations, but I'm willing to bet that scientists are a little less cavalier on the whole. While there are certainly crooked scientists out there, something tells me that the research crews over at Dow and DuPont recognize the overall utility and benefit of following the ethics guidelines. "The Corporation" is not some grand monolithic entity bent on world destruction. It's made up of people, and people aren't, on the whole, unscrupulous and evil.
Yeahbuhwha? I think you have a rather skewed concept of how testing affects value. Many companies would prefer to skip that testing phase altogether--after all, it's expensive, it's time-consuming, and it often leads to dead ends or disappointing results. Which is why there are so many groups looking to circumvent testing processes and get on the shelves without it--as dietary supplements, homeopathic remedies, and whatnot. And despite the fact that they've not been tested, for safety or effectiveness, they still sell, and they sell at a much greater profit than the stuff that went through the proper channels.Posted by: Tom Foss | April 15, 2008 at 05:31 PM