How animal "rights" activists recruit you unawares (was Re: Animal Rights( Re: A few comments to the Devils Advocat)

Michael Holloway mhollowa at
Sat Jul 17 18:08:12 EST 1993

In article <CSNET_MQ-101.930714030923.416 at> SPLUHAR at CROP.UOGUELPH.CA writes:

>  I happen to think that the vast majority of
>  people are in a middle position where they would like experimental
>  animals to suffer as little as possible. It can be argued that this
>  is good science because extranious stress factors could threaten the
>  validity of an experiment.

Its obvious from the full context of your post Stephen that you are not 
an animal "rights" activist in sheep's clothing but your text concisely 
illustrates an important point.  In scrambling for the narvana of the 
"middle position" you necessarily imply that you are between the animal 
"rights" crazies and some group of cruel sociopathic vivisectionists that 
have somehow escaped all federal guidelines involving use of animals in 
research and is lobbying for the right to continue their unrelenting cruelty.
This group, of course, does not exist.  You know that and I know that.  
However, the animal "rights" activists want the public and the politicians to 
believe that it does exist.
They've found that this is an easy enough job, given the failure of science
education in this country.  These poor bumbling researchers are such fools
that they even have to be told about how stress can effect their results.  

At some point, at some level, and apparently without realizing it, by
seeking the high middle ground you've been co-opted into helping the animal 
"rights" crowd erect their straw man.  This is the result of the way in 
which the "debate" is framed by the animal "rights" propaganda; a collection 
of lies, half-truths, and philosopher's logic traps.

Obviously, this wasn't your intention at all.  You're already aware of the 
importance of biomedical research.  So why am I picking on your use of words?
The cruel vivisectionist straw man is extremely valuable to the animal 
"rights" movement. So long as the vivisection lie can be maintained, as Jon 
Franklin said, "What's PETA's is PETA's.  What's your's is negotiable." 

There is no need to seek the middle ground in this matter.  You're already
there!  All professional and governmental organizations concerned with 
research that makes use of animal models has come down strongly against 
the animal "rights" movement. They did not do this in a foolish, immoral or 
precipitous manner.  What's needed is
strong, unified, opposition to this dangerously uninformed political

Yes, by all means, emphasize for the extremely stupid that
researchers are indeed human, that we don't go around torturing animals and
there are guidelines and committees that govern the use of animals in
research.  But never try to philosophically accommodate these people.  
After the kind of insults they heap on our work they really don't deserve
any accommodation.

More information about the Bioforum mailing list