It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

TA-ORGANIZATIONS: Violence escalates involving animal right's activism

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by obsidian468

Originally posted by StarBreather
The final goal is, of course, to make the ownership and consumption of animals a crime.

Your reasoning behind this would be what? Many animals wouldn't be able to survive without humans. Ever heard of domestication? Many domestic animals wouldn't be able to survive in the wild.


Ownership means "intent to use". Imagine if we were to make a creature almost human to do some kinds of human work. Many people would readily see that we intend to use this creature for slavery. Now, the difference between this imaginary creature and our real animals is just a matter of degree.
Animals exist by themselves, and do not need people to tell them what they are. Animals have natural needs that are unfulfilled when forced to live for a purpose that is not heir own. There are many cases of people who thought they knew their animals, until they have been killed by them.
If your animal were not born under your care, it wouldn't need to survive in a dependent state, in the first place. You only view animal ownership as natural because that is the way it has always been.
Domestication and breeding will be phased out when you realize that there is no need to make judgements about which animals will survive and which will die.




posted on May, 19 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by StarBreather

When done by a minority, you call it terrorism. When done by the majority, you call yourselves "innocent". Action against a singled-out target seems unfair. But organized action prejudicial to a vast number of living creatures who can't defend themselves somehow seems "normal".
Terrorism is such a loaded word!


no, its terrorism, the people they attack are only trying to help HUMANS, terrorism for ANIMALS is abnormal, they are animals, get over it, their actions put HUMAN LIVES at risk, nice to see you support animal rights more than saving human lives, if 'people' like you had your way, many millions of human deaths would be on your hands, people like me rely on animal tests, i take direct threats to my life such as pro-destruction of research facility TERRORISTS very seriously, i hope anti-peta/alf/whatever activists start attacks against these people, it would actually save real people.

you people are spoiled and naive, risking human life so you can feel better about yourselves, screw your moral elitism, try helping save a persons life instead.

[edit on 19-5-2005 by namehere]



posted on May, 19 2005 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by deadlynightshade
It is one thing to freely express your viewpoints through non-violent protesting but a whole other ball of wax to violate someone's home, car, bank account, and peace of mind.
[edit on 9-5-2005 by deadlynightshade]


Perhaps they're just taking a "Pro-Active Approach" to the situation, in the same way the rest of this country has taken recently. You might say they are "Bringing Freedom to Innocent Victims of Torture" while "Removing their Violent, Oppressive, Masters of Terror" in the process. It's the recently established choice in how to really get things done, is it not???

Monkey See, Monkey Do ya know?!?!?!?



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 05:38 AM
link   
Whilst I do not always condone all of the activities of this group something has to be done to highlight the abject misery that lab animals are subjected to all in the name of science, money and even worse vanity.

It is gut wrenching to see some of these poor little creatures. Take the time to find out for yourselves you just may have a different view.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 05:46 AM
link   
While it is sad to put animals through this, and they should definetly not be made to needlessly suffer, I prefer animal testing to human testing. I had a girl in one of my college classes actually say they should take and use people in testing over animals. While i think that is a little extreme and akin to what the nazis did in ww2, I thnk there should be an effort to prevent suffering on the part of the animals. putting stuff in their eyes to see if it blinds them is ridiculus.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
.....putting stuff in their eyes to see if it blinds them is ridiculus.


They do much worse than that. This is largely about huge grants; money and greed and animals are just the casualty. They can't fight or talk back..



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 06:07 AM
link   
To all the Animal Rights activists, the extrimists on your side are doing things like this, to middle-aged people with Parkinsons...


observer.guardian.co.uk...




Mike Robins is a man redeemed. Thanks to pioneering surgery, the debilitating effects of Parkinson's disease that were wrecking his life are now under tight control.

With the flick of a switch, he can turn off the uncontrollable tremors that stopped him holding down a job, having a social life or even getting to sleep. Not surprisingly, Robins reckons he is lucky to be fit and alive. Others are not so sure.

At a recent public meeting to discuss a proposed animal research centre in Oxford, 63-year-old Robins was jeered and ridiculed when he tried to show how surgery, perfected through animal experiments, had transformed his life.

'I was bayed at,' said Robins, a retired naval engineer from Southampton. 'Several hundred people were shouting. Some called out "Nazi!", "bastard!" and "Why don't you roll over and die!" I tried to speak, but was shouted down. It was utterly terrifying.'

The attack has shocked even hardened observers of vivisection debates. 'I have seen many unpleasant things at these debates, but to scream at a middle-aged man with Parkinson's disease and then tell him he deserved to die is the worst I have observed,' said Simon Festing, director of the Research Defence Society, which defends the scientific use of animals for experimentation.


These people are Anti-Humanists, they should be dealt with before they do some real damage resulting in the loss of life. You thought 9/11 was bad, wait until they release some Biological weapons on Purpose or by Mistake. Some(in the ALF and PETA) are very capable of doing such a thing either through Ignorance or Hatred of Humanity. If these things keep going the way they are, this movement will fail.

For the Record, I used to have some sympathy for these groups, I now have none left whatsoever. Non-Profit status should be revoked ASAP to any groups found out to be involved in any related terrorist activities. And of course Criminal prosecution.

[edit on 20-5-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 06:30 AM
link   
I am not a PETA or ALF supporter. But I am against the use of animals for medical testing. Its inhumane and well, pretty damn inefective. Humans are not animals. Drugs may affect animals one way, but will effect humans another way. Thus, animal testingisn't very effective. The things they do to animals in those medical facilities is pure evil. They inflict suffering and torture on the animals....for what? Half the time it has nothing to do with cures, but to see what this and that disease/drug ect do to the animals. And quite often, the effects are not even what they will be for a human.

I personally think that these "researchers" should put their money where their mouths are, and infect themselves with diseases and find a cure that way, if they are so dedicated to the greater good. They might get better results that way too.

If any of you actually were aware what sorts of things they do to animals in these labs, youd see my point. Its not just simply giving a rabit or rat a shot of this or that. The things they do to the animals generally are pretty unecessary and evil. I have seen cows and pigs get slaughtered for food, and while it is unpleasant, the animals are killed quickly, and they are used for a good purpose: to feed and clothe people.

But the things done to animals in research facilities areworse than the things Nazis did to human beings. For example, animals will be injected with pain causing poisons that set them into agony, and then they are observed simply to study their reactions, ect. Other times animals are mutilated in various experiments. They are denied any love, compassion, or carring, they dont even have social interactions with others of their kind. They live the most miserable possible existances.

Now, we might be able to justify this Mengle-fest on helpless creatures for the sake of medical science (though even that I question). Well allow that. But how the hell can you justify the use of animals in testing of non-essential products, such as cosmetics, toiletries, ect? Is it beneficial to human-kind to rub shampoo into a bunnys eyes while force feeding it mascara to check for allergies? The testing of cosmetics on animals is totally unecessary. Cosmetics can be tested on human volunteers and it would be far less cruel. besides, ocne again, just because it doesnt give a bunny a rash doesnt mean its ok for humans to use. Since cosmetics are not a necessary part of our survival, at the very least non medical experimentation on animals should be banned. Better results and more reliable data can be obtained from human volunteers.

I love animals. Animals have souls. They have complex lives. They feel emotions. I simply cannot stomach the idea of these living creatures being used up and slaughtered then tossed into the garbage like broken playthings. Isn't that how serial killers start out, anyway?

As far as people like PETA and ALF go, however, they are totally out of line. For instance, eating meat is necessary for our survival. So long as the animals are treated with dignity in life and allowed to live their lives in a natural manner, then I do not consider it inhumane or evil to kill them and eat them. Thats just part of the natural cycles of life. And these PETA people obviously do not understand animals when they claim keeping pets is abusive. Often, animals are drawn to human company as much as we are to theirs. Humans and animals have always formed complex relationships, and human and animal friendships are some of the most complex. But many animals benefit from human companionship, they have the same needs we do, tho theirs are more on a basic level.

Attacking bio-tech workers at their homes and threatening their families is indeed an act of terrorism. Its one thing to want to kick the ass off the guy whose been anally electrtocuting chimps to see how much juice it takes, its another thing to endanger and threaten innocent spouses and kids, and damage property.

They are hooligans, pure and simple, who think just because they are involved in a "green" cause that absolves them from all responsibility.

Tsk Tsk.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 07:13 AM
link   


I personally think that these "researchers" should put their money where their mouths are, and infect themselves with diseases and find a cure that way, if they are so dedicated to the greater good. They might get better results that way too.


Not if they die first... for those of you who think animal testing is ineffective, you're deluding yourselves. Sure it may not be perfect but we don't have a computer capable of doing the simulations accurately atm.

Did you read the article I posted above? It highlights exactly what happens when these people are confronted with absolute proof that animal testing DOES have an impact and is NOT ineffective. Remember genetically we are very similiar to alot of different creatures on this planet. What should we do for all the Paralysis patients? Paralyze a bunch of researchers and hope they develop a cure for themselves?
Without Animal Testing in that realm we would not be where we are today with Cybernetics(ever hear of the Monkey with Three Arms, one of them is Artificial)

I myself am a beneficiary of Animal Testing. Without the advanced Discus technology(for Asthma) I would still be dependant on dangerous drugs to relieve my symptoms, the danger of the drug I am currently on is that it shrinks my airways the more I use it and it's cummulative, when Advair came on the market it was a Godsend to me, without it being tested in animal trials I might be in a convalensance home right now(due to the fact that it would have taken longer to get approval for Human Trials in the current system). Wait till you're older and less healthy, I'll bet you'll be singing a different tune then. People become pragmatists when confronted with thier own mortality(which I have been faced with my whole life fyi)

[edit on 20-5-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 07:53 AM
link   
For those that think animal testing is necessary:


Animal experimentation, once presumably necessary, has become outdated. Today’s medical advances are capable of replacing the inhumane animal labs with science and computer labs. It is essential that Christians are made aware of this, since they, for the most part, fail miserably in stewardship responsibilities.


www.all-creatures.org...

members.iinet.net.au...

It is a myth that animal testing is necessary and for the benefit of humans.
These animals who are treated cruelly with no regard for their welfare cannot speak out for themselves, someone has too.

The ALF DO NOT send parcel bombs or beat people up. I was an active ALF member for many years and liberated many animals. Animals that would have died cruel painful deaths, now living in safe places.

This is just more government trying to squash any one they deem a threat.
So the industry of death and destruction, animal and human, can go on unabated.

vivisection-absurd.org.uk...

I don't expect anyone will bother reading these links. I can hear it now..."They're biased, blah, blah, blah"
Don't you think those that carry out animal testing, and those that support them, are biased?

Most animal testing has been found to be useless as humans react in a different way to drugs than do other animals, such as dogs and cats.


Methysergide.
No life-threatening symptoms were observed when this drug, for migraine, was tested on animals[1], and the British Medical Journal acknowledged that it had not been possible to produce fibrotic lesions in laboratory animals[2]. And yet the British National Formulary (1993), found it necessary to warn that the drug should only be administered to humans by trained medical staff as it had been found that the drug had serious side-effects which arose from fibrous tissue (retroperitoneal fibrosis) and these included heart failure.

[1]R. Heywood in Animal Toxicity Studies: Their Relevance For Man, eds. C. E. Lumley and S. R. Walker (Quay Pub: 1990).
[2]K. A. Misch, British Medical Journal, May 18 1974, pp.365- 366


vivisection-absurd.org.uk...

Cosmetic Animal testing

This has to be worst and most unnecessary of all animal testing. Putting cosmetics in monkeys eyes so people can look pretty. Try to imagine having chemicals dripped into your eyes as you are strapped down with no anaesthesia.

www.freeessays.cc...

ks.essortment.com...

There are alternatives to animal testing. In this so called modern civilised world we should not still be using outdated unnecessary cruel methods to test things that don't need testing in the first place.

[edit on 20/5/2005 by ANOK]



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 08:02 AM
link   


The ALF DO NOT send parcel bombs or beat people up.


Not yet they don't... They do use Intimidation tactics(eg Harassment which is Illigal), commit acts of Arson(or support it through funding to the ELF) and commit BnE's.

Please show me some Peer-Reviewed Studies please.

scholar.google.com...

Here is a good place to start. Providing links to obvously anti-vivisection websites does nothing to prove your case, and the fact the I am alive and well does alot to prove MY case...

And please elighten me to the alternatives. You have to prove your case by following a set of acedemic standards, the moment you try to disprove and demonize a widely accepted practice(amoung Researchers that is) just show's me that you and you're beliefs are threatend by obvous progress.

For those of you who think Simulations are adequete you really need to read up on the Human Proteomics Project as well as some basic Genetics textbooks.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 08:30 AM
link   
www.geari.org...

toxnet.nlm.nih.gov...

www.welch.jhu.edu...

www.invitroderm.com...

www.lib.iastate.edu...

Need any more?

And please take the time to look intead of just yelling bias.

[edit on 20/5/2005 by ANOK]



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Ok, Sardion, you were cured by animal testing. Since asthma is a life threating illness, we can grant that.

However, not all illnesses or conditions are life threating, nor are they destructibve, but natural. Like menopause.

Yet the harvesting of estrogens for medications to "treat" menopause are at the very least, sickening. Premarin is a good example. This drug is made from the Urine of a pregnant horse. Well, sort of pregnant.

The horse is kept pregnant through artifical means, yet is deliberately malnourished to the point that when her foal is delivered, it is deformed and weak, and is taken away to be put down, its remains sent off to a slaughter house. This "medical" proceedure is justified to ensure the mare's urine is the most potent for extracting the hormones.

So, what then, justifies THAT? Certainly not menopause. Many women go through menopause with no problems what so ever, and those who have symptoms, there are many more humane treatments available. Sdd to this that estrogen therapy has been shown to be pretty damn risky for the little relif it provides. For that, there is no justification for the cruel and inhumane metyhod this drug is extracted.

This isnt the only medication either. There are many drugs out there which are designed to treat things that are not that serious and can be dealt with, or usually go away. Yet animals must be made to continue suffering when peoples lives and health arent really at stake? Pulleezzzz

And what exactly is wrong with researchers performing the tests on themselves? What, are they so special and better than the rest of us that their longevity is of more importance? they certainly dont have problems using other humans as guina pigs when the time comes for field researching.

Which brings up another point: if data from lab animals is so reliable, then why the hell must drugs be fielded on human test subjects during the final phases of their devlopment? Surely, we share so much DNA with animals, that we could gather reliable data from them and not have to test humans!

It is because despite the large amount of DNA we may share with animals, they are, as anyone can see, very different physilogically than us, and drugs do not always effect them the same way they will effect us. For example, '___' 25 has absolutely no effect on cats, yet a human touching the stuff will be seeing pink ele[hants and fairies.

And Im still yet to see any justification for animal experimentation to test cosmetics and the like.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Okay, let's get this straight. I am all for Animal testing for debilitating and life-threatining diseases. And I wasn't cured there is no cure for asthma as of yet, it just made managing it 100 times easier while weaning me off of more dangerous drugs.

What Skadi described is unethical behaviour at it's finest and I am opposed to that. Let's just get that fact out of the way. I am arguing for logical uses of Animal Testing not Unnessesary Uses and there are Valid Uses for this methodoloy.



And Im still yet to see any justification for animal experimentation to test cosmetics and the like.


Neither do I see any justification for that practice...

But one thing still stands, Computational Biology is still in it's infancy. We know SQUAT about how the human body works on the Molecular and Sub-Molecular scales, if we had the capabilities to model the human body in it's entirety it would rapidy replace the Animal model as it would be much cheaper. Until the Human Proteomics Project is completed(and Implemented into simulations and understood) I will be very skeptical about any Computational Model of any complex orginism.

FYI I am reading the articles you posted ANOK, but there is alot there and will get back to you on that.



[edit on 20-5-2005 by sardion2000]

[edit on 20-5-2005 by sardion2000]

[edit on 20-5-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by namehere
no, its terrorism, the people they attack are only trying to help HUMANS, terrorism for ANIMALS is abnormal, they are animals, get over it, their actions put HUMAN LIVES at risk, nice to see you support animal rights more than saving human lives, if 'people' like you had your way, many millions of human deaths would be on your hands, people like me rely on animal tests, i take direct threats to my life such as pro-destruction of research facility TERRORISTS very seriously, i hope anti-peta/alf/whatever activists start attacks against these people, it would actually save real people.

If we keep going like this, soon the humans will be the only animals left in this planet. Your exaltation of human rights above all else is almost as if you were prepared to live in that situation. An empty planet with what's left of nature bent into a distorted image of Man. At the core of the human way of life: sacrifice and pain. Just like in the old days.


you people are spoiled and naive, risking human life so you can feel better about yourselves, screw your moral elitism, try helping save a persons life instead.

You people live in an imaginary world, with your heads buried in the sand. You think you can go far, but payback will stop you in your tracks. Human life is more at risk from the kind of mentality that goes for shortcuts. In the long run, avoiding animal abuse is saving human lives.



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lady of the Lake
Whilst I do not always condone all of the activities of this group something has to be done to highlight the abject misery that lab animals are subjected to all in the name of science, money and even worse vanity.

It is gut wrenching to see some of these poor little creatures. Take the time to find out for yourselves you just may have a different view.


Well, my only comment to your obvious views on medical research is that I hope you don't ever plan on taking any medicines or ever getting sick and being hospitalized or any of your family memebers for that matter, unless you want to be a hypocrite. Personally, I find a new born child dying of a disease that renders there little bodies into spineless jello to be more gut wrenching, so I will gladly continue performing medical research on those "poor little creatures".



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lady of the Lake

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
.....putting stuff in their eyes to see if it blinds them is ridiculus.


They do much worse than that. This is largely about huge grants; money and greed and animals are just the casualty. They can't fight or talk back..


Actually I considered someone having to get there thumb sewed back on an animal fighting back (owl monkey) and another person I know having to have 20 stitches in their arm from that so called defenseless little rabbit fighting back.



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Humans are not animals.


What biology book have you been reading?


Half the time it has nothing to do with cures, but to see what this and that disease/drug ect do to the animals. And quite often, the effects are not even what they will be for a human.


Let's see first off smaller animals such as mice are used for disease models. Their bodies are a tad simpler than that of a human. A group in Canada has found the protein codon that is specific to MS and are currently learning how to actually quarantine the codon in mice, so that pre-exsisting patients can have the codon quarantined and blocking the codon permanently in people who are genetically predisposed to the disease. Is this not a cure?

We have to understand the effects of diseases before we can start to treat them. As for toxicology studies, animals are used in the testing of drugs to make sure that they will have minimal effects on humans. Monkeys and pigs are generally used for these studies because their anatomy is VERY similar to ours. I don't think you would want to take that new allergy medicine, pain killer, or antibiotic not knowing what the effects are first? Would you like to volunteer yourself and your family for the little animal's benefit?


I personally think that these "researchers" should put their money where their mouths are, and infect themselves with diseases and find a cure that way, if they are so dedicated to the greater good. They might get better results that way too.


I take my life into my own hands everyday when I step into that ABSL3 suite. I will probably die one of these days by accident and will gladly allow myself to be experimented on. However, as long as the world is filled with narrow minded cowards, no names shall be mentioned. People like me will have to step up to the plate- and how was it you put it? Oh yeah, put my money where my mouth is.


But the things done to animals in research facilities areworse than the things Nazis did to human beings.

Speaking of contradictions- didn't you just say that researchers are evil and should infect themselves? Whose thinking thoughts of holocaust?


They are denied any love, compassion, or carring, they dont even have social interactions with others of their kind. They live the most miserable possible existances.


I find this amusing. I would bet you have pets at home. The animals in my lab are probably taken care of better than your own pets at home. They receive monthly physicals, are brushed and played with daily, receive a variety of treats, toys, puzzles, and even music, depending on the specific species needs. A rabbit gets the sniffles and the veterinarian is in that room less than an hour later giving the rabbit a full physical- taking swabs for culturing to ensure that the animal remains healthy.


Attacking bio-tech workers at their homes and threatening their families is indeed an act of terrorism. Its one thing to want to kick the ass off the guy whose been anally electrtocuting chimps to see how much juice it takes, its another thing to endanger and threaten innocent spouses and kids, and damage property.

They are hooligans, pure and simple, who think just because they are involved in a "green" cause that absolves them from all responsibility.

Tsk Tsk.


All animal research has a purpose and a proposal behind it. The research community abides by the three "Rs" refinement, reduction, and replacement. Look up the Animal Welfare Act sometime and maybe you would understand better. People do not anally electrocute monkeys to get their jollies off. As for the "guy" performing the research- should they not be allowed to come home safely to those spouses and children at the end of the day?



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 07:15 PM
link   


I myself am a beneficiary of Animal Testing. Without the advanced Discus technology(for Asthma) I would still be dependant on dangerous drugs to relieve my symptoms, the danger of the drug I am currently on is that it shrinks my airways the more I use it and it's cummulative, when Advair came on the market it was a Godsend to me, without it being tested in animal trials I might be in a convalensance home right now(due to the fact that it would have taken longer to get approval for Human Trials in the current system). Wait till you're older and less healthy, I'll bet you'll be singing a different tune then. People become pragmatists when confronted with thier own mortality(which I have been faced with my whole life fyi)

[edit on 20-5-2005 by sardion2000]


Thank you for the support! I work very hard to help find cures for diseases. On the behalf of my colleagues in the medical research community I would like to say you're welcome for things we may have done to help you live better.

[edit on 23-5-2005 by deadlynightshade]



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK



Animal experimentation, once presumably necessary, has become outdated. Today’s medical advances are capable of replacing the inhumane animal labs with science and computer labs. It is essential that Christians are made aware of this, since they, for the most part, fail miserably in stewardship responsibilities.


It is a myth that animal testing is necessary and for the benefit of humans.
These animals who are treated cruelly with no regard for their welfare cannot speak out for themselves, someone has too.

I don't expect anyone will bother reading these links. I can hear it now..."They're biased, blah, blah, blah"
Don't you think those that carry out animal testing, and those that support them, are biased?

[edit on 20/5/2005 by ANOK]


Myth #1- Computer models and cell cultures can replace animal testing.

Truth- Animal models provide an invaluable and irreplacable insight into the human systems. This is because certain animals have similiar genetic/or physiological systems. Even the most sophisticated technology models can not mimic the interactions that occur in a living model. There is NO complete alternative to animal research.

politics.abovetopsecret.com...
Not that you'll read this link because you're biased already being on the opposite side of this argument.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join