Re. "Animal rights" activists invade bionet
mhollowa at ic.sunysb.edu
Fri Jul 9 20:42:22 EST 1993
I apoligize to the readers out there who find this kind of
sniping tiresome and unproductive. Welcome to the "animal
rights" "debate". This is my last direct response to the
persons posting here who seem determined to bravely carry the
banner of the "animal rights" activists against us cruel
researchers. I will however, seek permission to copy and post
some articles I have that do an excellent job of dragging
the PETA crowd into the light of day. It shouldn't be too
surprising that there would be a number of students, and even,
unfortunately, principle investigators, who have never payed
attention to this stuff and, as a result, are suckered into
accepting the arguments at face value. The propaganda, after
all, is designed to do just that. An education campaign
is called for. Posting to talk.politics.animals will not
suffice since the people we need to reach do not read that
group and the articles themselves are written for researchers.
Anyone else reading this group who has been struck by the
severe level of noncomprehension displayed here is invited to
join me. Remember: simply ignoring these people has been what
has allowed them to make such great strides.
In article <9307091235.AA00720 at net.bio.net> SCHLOSSER at ciit.org writes:
>Just because we don't agree with the ulitmate objectives or methods of
>animal rights organizations (AR), does not mean that the issues they raise
>should not be discussed. Where better to do so? Just because we hold
>this discussion, doesn't mean that we support AR or destruction of
You hold "this discussion" using their definitions, their
scenarios and with the acceptance of their postulates.
Therefore, you are accomplishing nothing but making their case
>Yes, "rights" are something given by
>people to other people - and we can also give them to animals. How
>much should we give? Your tone seems to advocate none at all -
>whatever we do is justified. I'm not so sure about this.
You might as well start shoveling your money out to PETA, if
you haven't been already. The above clearly shows that you've
been effectively suckered into equating "animal rights" with
>How can we
>confront AR if we don't have a consensus among those involved in research.
>In that sense, I think that this discussion is quite helpful.
The consensus HAS been reached. *ALL* professional
organizations that *ANY* researcher in *ANY* field of
biomedical research that you might be associated with has a
policy opposed to "animal rights". Right beside that, they
display their policy promoting animal welfare, for the benefit
of the people who have been terminally confused by the "animal
rights" rhetoric. Do you belong to the AAAS? (Do you get
"Science"?) Following your reasoning then, and being sure to
use the language promulgated by PETA and their ilk, you must
be a cruel vivisectionist.
More information about the Bioforum