Poll: Animal Right's Organizations: Terrorists, Vigilanties or Heroes

[Soushi]

The title is pretty self explanitory. I have heard a lot to support all three, but everytime i come close to making a choice on one another new peice of information comes up. Animals deserve better treatment certainly, they should be given far better rights than they are, and certainly there are processes that should be eradicated. And yet for the sake of more advanced knowledge and for data that could unlock a better future for others, are there some sacrifices that have to be made? A popular saying seems to be "Sometimes short term violence must be used for long term gain", but does this not go both ways, both in justifying thier actions, and in justifying hte actions of the very people they are fighting against?
What of these people that take the law into thier own hands, how should they be regarded, as those who stand up for those without any voices that we listen to, or as those who are, or could become, a far more dangerous risk?
What do you all think? These people who take radical, even dangerous actions, in defense of what they believe in, who are they to you?

 

[Jindrak]

Yes, yes and yes.

Some are terrorists, those who terrorize. Some take the matter into their own hands, they are vigilantes. Some are great people campaigning for reform, those people are heroes.

Anyone who opposes medical advancement, I am against. I'm all for reform in the meat industry or others, but violence is not necessary.

 

[Hashime]

Some are terrorists, some are not. Any of the organizations against animal testing are bad news in my mind.

 

[Soushi]

Some are terrorists, some are not. Any of the organizations against animal testing are bad news in my mind.

May i ask what you mean? Do you mean it is bad news becasue of the tactics they seem to deploy, or something else?

 

[MajorKris]

Ugh...I can't really pick one since it can be categorized to all very easily.

Call me a hypocrite, but while I do eat meat, I hate the idea of skinning animals for fur.

I also hate how we treat animals poorly when used for food (The conditions they are brought up in and such). We are killing them for food, therefore I believe they deserve some respect.

Animal testing for medical advancement, such as rats, I am for. Once again though I will say respect.

 

[Soushi]

Ugh...I can't really pick one since it can be categorized to all very easily.

Call me a hypocrite, but while I do eat meat, I hate the idea of skinning animals for fur.

I also hate how we treat animals poorly when used for food (The conditions they are brought up in and such). We are killing them for food, therefore I believe they deserve some respect.

Animal testing for medical advancement, such as rats, I am for. Once again though I will say respect.

I wouldn't say a hypocrite (although some of these organizations demand that you be a vegan or vegetarian for entry into their groups). Everyone has a right to exists within the rules and laws, laws can change though. But you are right, respect is key. It comes down to: "hOw would we wish to be treated should we be placedi n a similar scenario."

 

[Hashime]

Some are terrorists, some are not. Any of the organizations against animal testing are bad news in my mind.

May i ask what you mean? Do you mean it is bad news becasue of the tactics they seem to deploy, or something else?

Well, I would consider PETA a terrorist organization because they do things like throw paint at people, and spread gross misinformation.
Your local animal shelter is not. They protect animals, but do not put them ahead of people.

Anyone who bombs a place because they are doing research on animals (instead of humans) has a many problems.

 

[WolfThomas]

Can't they be all three at time?

 

[Nikolaz72]

IM not against mass herding cows as long as they are raised in a proper enviroment.. Like out on the grass instead of stacking them on top of eachother feeding them till they grow fat by injecting them with.. Well. Fat. And then slaughtering them.

That counts for just about every meat.

But while i do eat meat the thing i hate about the current state of the world is that those who set fire to a cat or throw puppies in a river while being very hated by the people go fairly easy in terms of law/justice you name it. I mean honestly, it was once legal to throw puppies in a river (probably still is some places). And in many cases its better than just throwing them out and the kennels have enough as it is from Stray dogs. But those who torture them etc etc. Deserve to be punished as much as anyone who tortures a human. Animals should have some basic "Animal Rights"

 

[Turbulenssi]

Well, I would consider PETA a terrorist organization because they do things like throw paint at people, and spread gross misinformation.
Your local animal shelter is not. They protect animals, but do not put them ahead of people.

Anyone who bombs a place because they are doing research on animals (instead of humans) has a many problems.

I have to agree here. Animal shelters are doing far better work then PETA. PETA is just harassing people, spreading false information, supporting arsonists, and killing animals

"According to government documents, PETA employees have killed more than 19,200 dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens since 1998. This behavior continues despite PETA?s moralizing about the ?unethical? treatment of animals by farmers, scientists, restaurant owners, circuses, hunters, fishermen, zookeepers, and countless other Americans. PETA puts to death over 90 percent of the animals it accepts from members of the public who expect the group to make a reasonable attempt to find them adoptive homes. PETA holds absolutely no open-adoption shelter hours at its Norfolk, VA headquarters, choosing instead to spend part of its $32 million annual income on a contract with a crematory service to periodically empty hundreds of animal bodies from its large walk-in freezer."

Also I eat meat, I know where it comes from and I have a pretty good understading how it's being treated, and I accept it.

 

[nuba km]

Idiots, I don't want animal cruelty but we need to test on animals in order to advance medicines and make sure things are safe for people.

 

[CrustyOatmeal]

i dont think you can look at a whole group of people and classify them all under one description. i think you have to classify their actions on a stand alone basis. some actions taken are terrorist attacks, some are vigilantes taking matters into their own hands, and some are heroes for protecting and defending those that cannot defend themselves.

do i think animals deserve the right to not suffer during life? yes. do i believe a farm needs to be blown up for having chickens being confined in unhealthy environments? no. alot of the problem is misinformation mixed with people with little knowledge making rash decisions. we as humans tend to think about how "we" would feel put in the animals position and forget about the animal and its nature entirely.

here is an example: i have heard many people saying they believe chickens in coops is wrong because they should be put in open ranges to wonder freely in an open environment rather than a small shack. here is the problem with such logic, this is how humans would respond to being in a cramped environment but the chicken enjoys it. the chicken is scared when being in an open environment because that is where it is vulnerable to being attacked and killed by predators. they enjoy the shelter and the protection it provides.

this is what i am talking about, we are putting ourselves in a situation we have no experience being in. if you go to a free range chicken farm (which is a farm with a coop with an open door rather than a locked one) you will tend to find the birds inside the coop because they feel protected and safe there. as a chicken i would rather have my throat cut than being chased by a fox, bitten multiple times, and eaten alive.

thats my thoughts on the matter anyways. im not trying to tell people not to stand up for animal rights but im asking them not to be so close minded and to use their brains and allow the experts to get a word in before saying the big corporations have bought them

 

[Lerxst]

Um not terrorists; that's "Patriot Act" speak. Anyone voicing any kind of dissent suddenly became a terrorist thanks to that one piece of legislature. Anyway, back to an argument the OP made.

PCRM [http://www.pcrm.org/] (Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine) is a site everyone reading this thread needs to look at and read in depth before continuing any further. Most of the argument people are going to start making (or already have) have already been covered in depth by scientists, researchers and doctors with a lot more knowledge and experience than any of us on here at the Escapist. So I'm begging everyone - before you continue an argument on this thread, read this site!

This is a group of medical professionals and doctors who are arguing against animal testing, calling it futile, useless, inaccurate and prehistoric. 100+ years ago before computers or accurate instruments, you may have brought a canary into a coal mine. Nowadays technology has replaced that need, the same as it has in every other "research" aspect.

You test something on a rat, you get the results of it on that rat. Human application is still a mystery, but we know for certain that it may cause cancer in rats. This is just bad science.

For instance, I know Teflon is toxic for birds; it's been well documented through human error and veterinary reports. For humans though, we can burn Teflon all day long and not notice a single side-effect.

As I said before though, PCRM has covered all of these argument in much greater detail than I can. They are also a non-profit not looking to make money out of their stance. Really (and I can't stress this enough) read their information before drawing a half-baked conclusion the multi-billion dollar corporations out there have brain-washed us into believing.

 

[BonsaiK]

Well, I would consider PETA a terrorist organization because they do things like throw paint at people, and spread gross misinformation.

Is that actually what qualifies someone as being a "terrorist" these days? I had paint and several other things thrown at me in high school, does this mean that I'm a "terror victim"? And if "spreading gross misinformation" was a test for terrorism I reckon we could send most of the users of this or any other forum off to a military prison quite justifiably.

Not saying yes or no about Peta or any other organisations, but I think people throw the word "terrorist" around way too much these days. It takes more than a can of Dulux Hi-Gloss to "terrify" me.

 

[Hashime]

Um not terrorists; that's "Patriot Act" speak. Anyone voicing any kind of dissent suddenly became a terrorist thanks to that one piece of legislature. Anyway, back to an argument the OP made.

PCRM [http://www.pcrm.org/] (Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine) is a site everyone reading this thread needs to look at and read in depth before continuing any further. Most of the argument people are going to start making (or already have) have already been covered in depth by scientists, researchers and doctors with a lot more knowledge and experience than any of us on here at the Escapist. So I'm begging everyone - before you continue an argument on this thread, read this site!

This is a group of medical professionals and doctors who are arguing against animal testing, calling it futile, useless, inaccurate and prehistoric. 100+ years ago before computers or accurate instruments, you may have brought a canary into a coal mine. Nowadays technology has replaced that need, the same as it has in every other "research" aspect.

You test something on a rat, you get the results of it on that rat. Human application is still a mystery, but we know for certain that it may cause cancer in rats. This is just bad science.

For instance, I know Teflon is toxic for birds; it's been well documented through human error and veterinary reports. For humans though, we can burn Teflon all day long and not notice a single side-effect.

As I said before though, PCRM has covered all of these argument in much greater detail than I can. They are also a non-profit not looking to make money out of their stance. Really (and I can't stress this enough) read their information before drawing a half-baked conclusion the multi-billion dollar corporations out there have brain-washed us into believing.

I hate to disagree but animal testing is invaluable. There are many tests that can be performed using the convenience of similar anatomy without putting humans at risk. Software models can and should be used to reduce animal tests when possible, but every drug I take better have been properly evaluated using real anatomy. Computers can make mistakes, an animal instantly dying after taking a drug (repeated, vs control) in unmistakeably a bad sign

 

[Lerxst]

Um not terrorists; that's "Patriot Act" speak. Anyone voicing any kind of dissent suddenly became a terrorist thanks to that one piece of legislature. Anyway, back to an argument the OP made.

PCRM [http://www.pcrm.org/] (Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine) is a site everyone reading this thread needs to look at and read in depth before continuing any further. Most of the argument people are going to start making (or already have) have already been covered in depth by scientists, researchers and doctors with a lot more knowledge and experience than any of us on here at the Escapist. So I'm begging everyone - before you continue an argument on this thread, read this site!

This is a group of medical professionals and doctors who are arguing against animal testing, calling it futile, useless, inaccurate and prehistoric. 100+ years ago before computers or accurate instruments, you may have brought a canary into a coal mine. Nowadays technology has replaced that need, the same as it has in every other "research" aspect.

You test something on a rat, you get the results of it on that rat. Human application is still a mystery, but we know for certain that it may cause cancer in rats. This is just bad science.

For instance, I know Teflon is toxic for birds; it's been well documented through human error and veterinary reports. For humans though, we can burn Teflon all day long and not notice a single side-effect.

As I said before though, PCRM has covered all of these argument in much greater detail than I can. They are also a non-profit not looking to make money out of their stance. Really (and I can't stress this enough) read their information before drawing a half-baked conclusion the multi-billion dollar corporations out there have brain-washed us into believing.

I hate to disagree but animal testing is invaluable. There are many tests that can be performed using the convenience of similar anatomy without putting humans at risk. Software models can and should be used to reduce animal tests when possible, but every drug I take better have been properly evaluated using real anatomy. Computers can make mistakes, an animal instantly dying after taking a drug (repeated, vs control) in unmistakeably a bad sign

Computers may make mistakes, but people have already made even worse mistakes [http://www.pcrm.org/resch/anexp/dangerous_med.html] and not all of them were unintentional.

Specifically, look up Rezulin on that list. Not only was it harmless in the animals tested but fatal to humans... they changed the name repeatedly to keep it on the market - and that was only 10 years ago!

Considering we no longer drill people's heads open to "let the demons out" to cure a headache, it's a mystery to many in the medical community why we still kept this inaccurate, medieval practice of animal testing.

Recently the idea of reducing animal testing has become more popular and science hasn't been any worse off for it [http://www.pcrm.org/resch/anexp/without_animals.html]. In fact, that one example alone showed a 24% increase in human accuracy using human tissue instead of living rats.

 

[Toaster Hunter]

All and none. There are so many different organizations it is impossible to group them all together. PETA and the ASPCA may have similar goals but are so different in their methods that they cannot be compared together.

 

[Something Amyss]

All of the above. Animal Rights Organizations are not some hive mind. There are folks who are terrorists, thugs and criminals. and some organisations who are generally good and kind.

Things are rarely simple.

 

[JJMUG]

Um not terrorists; that's "Patriot Act" speak. Anyone voicing any kind of dissent suddenly became a terrorist thanks to that one piece of legislature. Anyway, back to an argument the OP made.

PCRM [http://www.pcrm.org/] (Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine) is a site everyone reading this thread needs to look at and read in depth before continuing any further. Most of the argument people are going to start making (or already have) have already been covered in depth by scientists, researchers and doctors with a lot more knowledge and experience than any of us on here at the Escapist. So I'm begging everyone - before you continue an argument on this thread, read this site!

This is a group of medical professionals and doctors who are arguing against animal testing, calling it futile, useless, inaccurate and prehistoric. 100+ years ago before computers or accurate instruments, you may have brought a canary into a coal mine. Nowadays technology has replaced that need, the same as it has in every other "research" aspect.

You test something on a rat, you get the results of it on that rat. Human application is still a mystery, but we know for certain that it may cause cancer in rats. This is just bad science.

For instance, I know Teflon is toxic for birds; it's been well documented through human error and veterinary reports. For humans though, we can burn Teflon all day long and not notice a single side-effect.

As I said before though, PCRM has covered all of these argument in much greater detail than I can. They are also a non-profit not looking to make money out of their stance. Really (and I can't stress this enough) read their information before drawing a half-baked conclusion the multi-billion dollar corporations out there have brain-washed us into believing.

You do know the PCRM is a PETA front. Neal D. Barnard sat on the board of Foundation to Support Animal Protection which became the PETA Foundation, which gave more than 1.3 million the PCRM. There is so much stupidity in statements like "You test something on a rat, you get the results of it on that rat. Human application is still a mystery, but we know for certain that it may cause cancer in rats. This is just bad science." Really? do you really believe that let me find the list of Medical advancements found through animal testing.
Year


Medical Advancement


Animal credited

1796


Smallpox vaccine developed


Cow

1881


Anthrax vaccine developed


Sheep

1885


Rabies vaccine developed


Dog, Rabbit

1902


Lifecyle of Malaria discovered


Pigeon

1919


Immunity mechanisms discovered


Rabbit, Horse, Guinea Pig

1921


Insulin discovered


Dog, Fish

1932


Neuron function discovered


Cat, Dog

1933


Tetanus vaccine developed


Horse

1939


Anticoagulants developed


Cat

1954


Polio vaccine developed


Mouse, Monkey

1956


Open-heart surgery & pacemakers developed


Dog

1964


Cholesterol regulation discovered


Rat

1973


Social & behavioral patterns in animals discovered


Fish, Bee, Bird

1982


Leprosy treatment developed


Armadillo

1990


Organ transplant techniques advanced


Dog, Pig, Sheep, Cow

1997


Prions discovered & characterized


Hamster, Mouse

2000


Brain signal transduction discovered


Sea Slug, Mouse, Rat

2002


Cell death mechanism discovered


Worm

all from http://cflegacy.research.umn.edu/iacuc/public_media/medadvances.cfm its also just a sample from the list.

 

[bdcjacko]

All of the above. Animal Rights Organizations are not some hive mind. There are folks who are terrorists, thugs and criminals. and some organisations who are generally good and kind.

Things are rarely simple.

Animals have the right to remain tasty.