Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing

November 28, 2006

But surely some animal experiments do yield valid results. Isn't it just

wishful thinking to try and believe otherwise?

Towards the end of the programme they questioned a guy - I think he was

the author of the 'Animal Liberation' book - who (to everyone's

surprise) agreed that some particular research on animals was

worthwhile. Unless I got that wrong, surely that counts for a lot.

Cheers,

James

nejmai wrote:

>

> Did anyone see this? My partner and I were quite disappointed. Not

> once, but twice did the scientists make the statement that " all

> medical advances " (or all " significant " advances, said one) were the

> results of animal experiments. What crap. They also said that testing

> of animals on cosmetics is no longer done..patently not true. Despite

> his testament otherwise, the filmmaker seemed to have his mind made up

> from the get-go.

>

> <%40>,

> peter VV <swpgh01 wrote:

> >

> > Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing Mon 27 Nov, 9:00 pm - 10:20

> pm 80mins

> > Can killing animals to save humans ever be justified? That's the

> question at the heart of the biggest battle in the history of animal

> rights - the campaign to stop Oxford University building an £18m new

> animal lab.

> >

> > As the demonstrations turn violent, film maker Adam Wishart has a

> ringside seat at the conflict. Out on the marches and talking to the

> scientists, Adam asks if vivisection actually works, and, if it does,

> can it be justified?

> >

> > Given unique access to the animal labs, this film shows you what

> actually happens to the rats and monkeys as researchers explore the

> workings of their brains. And we follow the story of Sean Gardiner,

> one young boy whose life could be transformed by animal research.

> Strong language and upsetting scenes.

> >

> > Peter H

> >

> > Try the all-new Mail . " The New Version is radically easier

> to use " – The Wall Street Journal

> >

November 28, 2006

Species differences count for a lot in making vivisection unreliable, and

even if some of it is reliable, if the end justified the means, then the

nazi experiments on humans would also be justified. A lot was learned from

them, but it does not make it justified. If you justify it on animals, but

not by the Nazis on humans, it's not consistent and it is not animal rights.

Peter Singer I have always said is not a real advocate for animal rights, as

was seen on the programme.

Lesley

On Behalf Of

James H

28 November 2006 10:08

Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing

But surely some animal experiments do yield valid results. Isn't it just

wishful thinking to try and believe otherwise?

Towards the end of the programme they questioned a guy - I think he was

the author of the 'Animal Liberation' book - who (to everyone's

surprise) agreed that some particular research on animals was

worthwhile. Unless I got that wrong, surely that counts for a lot.

Cheers,

James

nejmai wrote:

>

> Did anyone see this? My partner and I were quite disappointed. Not

> once, but twice did the scientists make the statement that " all

> medical advances " (or all " significant " advances, said one) were the

> results of animal experiments. What crap. They also said that testing

> of animals on cosmetics is no longer done..patently not true. Despite

> his testament otherwise, the filmmaker seemed to have his mind made up

> from the get-go.

>

> <%40>,

> peter VV <swpgh01 wrote:

> >

> > Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing Mon 27 Nov, 9:00 pm - 10:20

> pm 80mins

> > Can killing animals to save humans ever be justified? That's the

> question at the heart of the biggest battle in the history of animal

> rights - the campaign to stop Oxford University building an £18m new

> animal lab.

> >

> > As the demonstrations turn violent, film maker Adam Wishart has a

> ringside seat at the conflict. Out on the marches and talking to the

> scientists, Adam asks if vivisection actually works, and, if it does,

> can it be justified?

> >

> > Given unique access to the animal labs, this film shows you what

> actually happens to the rats and monkeys as researchers explore the

> workings of their brains. And we follow the story of Sean Gardiner,

> one young boy whose life could be transformed by animal research.

> Strong language and upsetting scenes.

> >

> > Peter H

> >

> > Try the all-new Mail . " The New Version is radically easier

> to use " – The Wall Street Journal

> >

November 28, 2006

Arkangel have it spot on about Singer,

http://www.arkangelweb.org/international/uk/20061127singer.php

This article is good because it tells you who really did the pioneering

research, not using animals. Aziz is a liar and a fraud.

Lesley

On Behalf Of

James H

28 November 2006 10:08

Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing

But surely some animal experiments do yield valid results. Isn't it just

wishful thinking to try and believe otherwise?

Towards the end of the programme they questioned a guy - I think he was

the author of the 'Animal Liberation' book - who (to everyone's

surprise) agreed that some particular research on animals was

worthwhile. Unless I got that wrong, surely that counts for a lot.

Cheers,

James

nejmai wrote:

>

> Did anyone see this? My partner and I were quite disappointed. Not

> once, but twice did the scientists make the statement that " all

> medical advances " (or all " significant " advances, said one) were the

> results of animal experiments. What crap. They also said that testing

> of animals on cosmetics is no longer done..patently not true. Despite

> his testament otherwise, the filmmaker seemed to have his mind made up

> from the get-go.

>

> <%40>,

> peter VV <swpgh01 wrote:

> >

> > Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing Mon 27 Nov, 9:00 pm - 10:20

> pm 80mins

> > Can killing animals to save humans ever be justified? That's the

> question at the heart of the biggest battle in the history of animal

> rights - the campaign to stop Oxford University building an £18m new

> animal lab.

> >

> > As the demonstrations turn violent, film maker Adam Wishart has a

> ringside seat at the conflict. Out on the marches and talking to the

> scientists, Adam asks if vivisection actually works, and, if it does,

> can it be justified?

> >

> > Given unique access to the animal labs, this film shows you what

> actually happens to the rats and monkeys as researchers explore the

> workings of their brains. And we follow the story of Sean Gardiner,

> one young boy whose life could be transformed by animal research.

> Strong language and upsetting scenes.

> >

> > Peter H

> >

> > Try the all-new Mail . " The New Version is radically easier

> to use " – The Wall Street Journal

> >

November 28, 2006

Hi James,

I'm guessing you're talking about Singer. In which case whilst he advanced

the cause of animal rights vastly, is himself a utilitarian first and

foremost. Which means that, if forced to weigh one animal's life against two

humans' lives, he will come down on the side of the humans.

Now personally, I'm not a utilitarian - I don't believe that any person or

being should be forced against their will to suffer, no matter the benefit.

Indeed, if you consider an entirely utilitarian society, it is one of fear -

at any moment, your life may be sacrificed for the benefit of others against

your will.

So whether Singer's view counts for a lot depends on where you stand with

regard to utilitarinism.

Even so, I believe he said that _if_ the research on a few animals

_definitely_ lead to the saving of lives, then that was a good thing. Which

are strong rejoinders, and also leave open the possibility that whilst this

may be a good thing, other alternative methods of arriving at the same

saving of lives, if not involving animal experimentation, would be a better

thing.

Which leads to the final point - that even if some animal experiments do

yield valid results, that doesn't make them the best method of achieving

those results. So there is no need to believe animal experiments don't yeild

results to believe them to be wrong. Two different things entirely.

John

-

" James H " <james

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 10:08 AM

Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing

> But surely some animal experiments do yield valid results. Isn't it just

> wishful thinking to try and believe otherwise?

>

> Towards the end of the programme they questioned a guy - I think he was

> the author of the 'Animal Liberation' book - who (to everyone's

> surprise) agreed that some particular research on animals was

> worthwhile. Unless I got that wrong, surely that counts for a lot.

>

> Cheers,

> James

>

> nejmai wrote:

>>

>> Did anyone see this? My partner and I were quite disappointed. Not

>> once, but twice did the scientists make the statement that " all

>> medical advances " (or all " significant " advances, said one) were the

>> results of animal experiments. What crap. They also said that testing

>> of animals on cosmetics is no longer done..patently not true. Despite

>> his testament otherwise, the filmmaker seemed to have his mind made up

>> from the get-go.

>>

>> <%40>,

>> peter VV <swpgh01 wrote:

>> >

>> > Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing Mon 27 Nov, 9:00 pm - 10:20

>> pm 80mins

>> > Can killing animals to save humans ever be justified? That's the

>> question at the heart of the biggest battle in the history of animal

>> rights - the campaign to stop Oxford University building an £18m new

>> animal lab.

>> >

>> > As the demonstrations turn violent, film maker Adam Wishart has a

>> ringside seat at the conflict. Out on the marches and talking to the

>> scientists, Adam asks if vivisection actually works, and, if it does,

>> can it be justified?

>> >

>> > Given unique access to the animal labs, this film shows you what

>> actually happens to the rats and monkeys as researchers explore the

>> workings of their brains. And we follow the story of Sean Gardiner,

>> one young boy whose life could be transformed by animal research.

>> Strong language and upsetting scenes.

>> >

>> > Peter H

>> >

>> > Try the all-new Mail . " The New Version is radically easier

>> to use " – The Wall Street Journal

>> >

November 28, 2006

Hi Lesley,

It is consistent if you consider humans more important than animals.

Though that does not, as you say, make it animal rights. Or indeed any sort

of right.

John

-

" Lesley Dove " <Lesley

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 11:00 AM

RE: Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing

Species differences count for a lot in making vivisection unreliable, and

even if some of it is reliable, if the end justified the means, then the

nazi experiments on humans would also be justified. A lot was learned from

them, but it does not make it justified. If you justify it on animals, but

not by the Nazis on humans, it's not consistent and it is not animal rights.

Peter Singer I have always said is not a real advocate for animal rights, as

was seen on the programme.

Lesley

On Behalf Of

James H

28 November 2006 10:08

Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing

But surely some animal experiments do yield valid results. Isn't it just

wishful thinking to try and believe otherwise?

Towards the end of the programme they questioned a guy - I think he was

the author of the 'Animal Liberation' book - who (to everyone's

surprise) agreed that some particular research on animals was

worthwhile. Unless I got that wrong, surely that counts for a lot.

Cheers,

James

nejmai wrote:

>

> Did anyone see this? My partner and I were quite disappointed. Not

> once, but twice did the scientists make the statement that " all

> medical advances " (or all " significant " advances, said one) were the

> results of animal experiments. What crap. They also said that testing

> of animals on cosmetics is no longer done..patently not true. Despite

> his testament otherwise, the filmmaker seemed to have his mind made up

> from the get-go.

>

> <%40>,

> peter VV <swpgh01 wrote:

> >

> > Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing Mon 27 Nov, 9:00 pm - 10:20

> pm 80mins

> > Can killing animals to save humans ever be justified? That's the

> question at the heart of the biggest battle in the history of animal

> rights - the campaign to stop Oxford University building an £18m new

> animal lab.

> >

> > As the demonstrations turn violent, film maker Adam Wishart has a

> ringside seat at the conflict. Out on the marches and talking to the

> scientists, Adam asks if vivisection actually works, and, if it does,

> can it be justified?

> >

> > Given unique access to the animal labs, this film shows you what

> actually happens to the rats and monkeys as researchers explore the

> workings of their brains. And we follow the story of Sean Gardiner,

> one young boy whose life could be transformed by animal research.

> Strong language and upsetting scenes.

> >

> > Peter H

> >

> > Try the all-new Mail . " The New Version is radically easier

> to use " - The Wall Street Journal

> >

November 28, 2006

I agree with you that testing on unwilling humans is not correct. That

is, unless they are on death row (but that's another matter!...).

But when it comes to animals if, say, the only way to save my son's life

was to perform vivisection on an animal then of course I'd agree to it.

So, for me, the same applies to any person and any animal.

The change in consistency is because I believe humans are worth more

than animals. I would rather an animal suffer or die than a human suffer

or die.

Lesley Dove wrote:

>

> Species differences count for a lot in making vivisection unreliable, and

> even if some of it is reliable, if the end justified the means, then the

> nazi experiments on humans would also be justified. A lot was learned from

> them, but it does not make it justified. If you justify it on animals, but

> not by the Nazis on humans, it's not consistent and it is not animal

> rights.

> Peter Singer I have always said is not a real advocate for animal

> rights, as

> was seen on the programme.

>

> Lesley

>

> <%40>

> [ <%40>] On

> Behalf Of

> James H

> 28 November 2006 10:08

> <%40>

> Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing

>

> But surely some animal experiments do yield valid results. Isn't it just

> wishful thinking to try and believe otherwise?

>

> Towards the end of the programme they questioned a guy - I think he was

> the author of the 'Animal Liberation' book - who (to everyone's

> surprise) agreed that some particular research on animals was

> worthwhile. Unless I got that wrong, surely that counts for a lot.

>

> Cheers,

> James

>

> nejmai wrote:

> >

> > Did anyone see this? My partner and I were quite disappointed. Not

> > once, but twice did the scientists make the statement that " all

> > medical advances " (or all " significant " advances, said one) were the

> > results of animal experiments. What crap. They also said that testing

> > of animals on cosmetics is no longer done..patently not true. Despite

> > his testament otherwise, the filmmaker seemed to have his mind made up

> > from the get-go.

> >

> > <%40>

> <%40>,

> > peter VV <swpgh01 wrote:

> > >

> > > Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing Mon 27 Nov, 9:00 pm - 10:20

> > pm 80mins

> > > Can killing animals to save humans ever be justified? That's the

> > question at the heart of the biggest battle in the history of animal

> > rights - the campaign to stop Oxford University building an £18m new

> > animal lab.

> > >

> > > As the demonstrations turn violent, film maker Adam Wishart has a

> > ringside seat at the conflict. Out on the marches and talking to the

> > scientists, Adam asks if vivisection actually works, and, if it does,

> > can it be justified?

> > >

> > > Given unique access to the animal labs, this film shows you what

> > actually happens to the rats and monkeys as researchers explore the

> > workings of their brains. And we follow the story of Sean Gardiner,

> > one young boy whose life could be transformed by animal research.

> > Strong language and upsetting scenes.

> > >

> > > Peter H

> > >

> > > Try the all-new Mail . " The New Version is radically easier

> > to use " – The Wall Street Journal

> > >

November 28, 2006

-

" James H " <james

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:48 PM

Re: Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing

>I agree with you that testing on unwilling humans is not correct. That

> is, unless they are on death row (but that's another matter!...).

Death row is not another matter. To torture sentient beings is wrong, quite

regardless if they are on death row or not.

>

> But when it comes to animals if, say, the only way to save my son's life

> was to perform vivisection on an animal then of course I'd agree to it.

If my son's life would be saved by torturing your son, why I wouldn't

agree to it, according to your logic?

> So, for me, the same applies to any person and any animal.

>

> The change in consistency is because I believe humans are worth more

> than animals. I would rather an animal suffer or die than a human suffer

> or die.

You are obviously a speciesist (chauvenist at species level). I cannot

believe that I read such statements on a vegan list. I thought that this

list

was for people who don't support abuse and torturing of non-human

animals, but sadly this is not the case.

I have a question for you: are humans animals? Are humans primates?

Are humans mammals? And if humans are animals, how can we speak

about humans *and* animals? Complete nonsense.

Regarding the question: " Are humans animals? " , of course this is true.

Everyone who attended elementary course in biology should know this.

November 28, 2006

Well at least you are openly admitting to being a speciesist.

Has anyone read this interview or anything else about Joan Dunayer?

I've not read any of her books but she is closer than Singer to the views of

many animal rights advocates these days, has anyone read any of her books?

http://animalliberationfront.com/Saints/Authors/Interviews/Interview_JDunaye

r.htm

Lesley

On Behalf Of

James H

28 November 2006 12:49

Re: Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing

I agree with you that testing on unwilling humans is not correct. That

is, unless they are on death row (but that's another matter!...).

But when it comes to animals if, say, the only way to save my son's life

was to perform vivisection on an animal then of course I'd agree to it.

So, for me, the same applies to any person and any animal.

The change in consistency is because I believe humans are worth more

than animals. I would rather an animal suffer or die than a human suffer

or die.

Lesley Dove wrote:

>

> Species differences count for a lot in making vivisection unreliable, and

> even if some of it is reliable, if the end justified the means, then the

> nazi experiments on humans would also be justified. A lot was learned from

> them, but it does not make it justified. If you justify it on animals, but

> not by the Nazis on humans, it's not consistent and it is not animal

> rights.

> Peter Singer I have always said is not a real advocate for animal

> rights, as

> was seen on the programme.

>

> Lesley

>

> <%40>

> [ <%40>] On

> Behalf Of

> James H

> 28 November 2006 10:08

> <%40>

> Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing

>

> But surely some animal experiments do yield valid results. Isn't it just

> wishful thinking to try and believe otherwise?

>

> Towards the end of the programme they questioned a guy - I think he was

> the author of the 'Animal Liberation' book - who (to everyone's

> surprise) agreed that some particular research on animals was

> worthwhile. Unless I got that wrong, surely that counts for a lot.

>

> Cheers,

> James

>

> nejmai wrote:

> >

> > Did anyone see this? My partner and I were quite disappointed. Not

> > once, but twice did the scientists make the statement that " all

> > medical advances " (or all " significant " advances, said one) were the

> > results of animal experiments. What crap. They also said that testing

> > of animals on cosmetics is no longer done..patently not true. Despite

> > his testament otherwise, the filmmaker seemed to have his mind made up

> > from the get-go.

> >

> > <%40>

> <%40>,

> > peter VV <swpgh01 wrote:

> > >

> > > Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing Mon 27 Nov, 9:00 pm - 10:20

> > pm 80mins

> > > Can killing animals to save humans ever be justified? That's the

> > question at the heart of the biggest battle in the history of animal

> > rights - the campaign to stop Oxford University building an £18m new

> > animal lab.

> > >

> > > As the demonstrations turn violent, film maker Adam Wishart has a

> > ringside seat at the conflict. Out on the marches and talking to the

> > scientists, Adam asks if vivisection actually works, and, if it does,

> > can it be justified?

> > >

> > > Given unique access to the animal labs, this film shows you what

> > actually happens to the rats and monkeys as researchers explore the

> > workings of their brains. And we follow the story of Sean Gardiner,

> > one young boy whose life could be transformed by animal research.

> > Strong language and upsetting scenes.

> > >

> > > Peter H

> > >

> > > Try the all-new Mail . " The New Version is radically easier

> > to use " – The Wall Street Journal

> > >

November 28, 2006

Hi,

>> The change in consistency is because I believe humans are worth more

>> than animals. I would rather an animal suffer or die than a human suffer

>> or die.

>

> You are obviously a speciesist I cannot

> believe that I read such statements on a vegan list.

To step in here, I do not think it is necessarily speciesist to place

greater importance on humans than other animals, or indeed vice versa. What

is speciest is to do so without rational justification and a stated

framework within which to make such a statement.

For example. If one considers the ability to reason a framework for defining

importance, then humans are more important than rats. If one considers the

ability to fly a framework for defining importance, then bats are more

important than humans. For many people, including animal rights supporters,

the concept of suffering is frequently used to define importance. Therefore

if a human is more capable than suffering than a rat, then the human is more

important.

Veganism is not incompatable with this view that humans are more important

than animals, because it does not say that they are _infinitely_ more

important. Which is to say the dietry whim of a human is not placed above

the life of an animal.

All of which said, personally I don't believe humans more important than

other animals. But to believe so is not necessarily speciesist, and

certainly not incompatible with veganism.

John

-

" Hrvoje Nezic " <hrvoje.nezic

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:37 PM

Re: Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing

> -

> " James H " <james

>

> Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:48 PM

> Re: Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing

>

>>I agree with you that testing on unwilling humans is not correct. That

>> is, unless they are on death row (but that's another matter!...).

>

> Death row is not another matter. To torture sentient beings is wrong,

> quite

> regardless if they are on death row or not.

>

>>

>> But when it comes to animals if, say, the only way to save my son's life

>> was to perform vivisection on an animal then of course I'd agree to it.

>

> If my son's life would be saved by torturing your son, why I wouldn't

> agree to it, according to your logic?

>

>> So, for me, the same applies to any person and any animal.

>>

>> The change in consistency is because I believe humans are worth more

>> than animals. I would rather an animal suffer or die than a human suffer

>> or die.

>

> You are obviously a speciesist (chauvenist at species level). I cannot

> believe that I read such statements on a vegan list. I thought that this

> list

> was for people who don't support abuse and torturing of non-human

> animals, but sadly this is not the case.

>

> I have a question for you: are humans animals? Are humans primates?

> Are humans mammals? And if humans are animals, how can we speak

> about humans *and* animals? Complete nonsense.

>

> Regarding the question: " Are humans animals? " , of course this is true.

> Everyone who attended elementary course in biology should know this.

>

> ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author,

> there may be another side to the story you have not heard.

> ---------------------------

> Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped?

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>

> Un: send a blank message to -

>

November 28, 2006

Hrvoje,

> Death row is not another matter. To torture sentient beings is wrong, quite

> regardless if they are on death row or not.

I didn't even mention torture. If people on death row are going to be

given a lethal injection, then why not put them to sleep, then do the

research and then give them the lethal injection. And before anyone says

anything about human rights, these people have already lost their human

rights. That said, I'm sure there are many on death row that would be

wanting to repay their debt to society by being a willing subject.

> If my son's life would be saved by torturing your son, why I wouldn't

> agree to it, according to your logic?

Because you are evaluating a human against another human. I was

evaluating a human against an animal.

> You are obviously a speciesist (chauvenist at species level).

I think humans are superior to animals. That doesn't make me chauvinist.

Are you saying you wouldn't take a dog's life to save your son's life??

> I thought that this list was for people who don't support abuse and

> torturing of non-human animals, but sadly this is not the case.

I thought this list was for vegans. And isn't the definition of a vegan

meant to be someone who is against uneccesary death and abuse of

animals? We simply differ on what we deem uneccesary.

> I have a question for you: are humans animals? Are humans primates?

> Are humans mammals? And if humans are animals, how can we speak

> about humans *and* animals? Complete nonsense.

Of course humans are animals, but (like it or not) we're a different,

more advanced type of animal. I use the term " humans and animals " just

like I use the term " Brits and Europeans " . Yes, people could instead say

" humans and other animals " or " Brits and other Europeans " . It's not

complete nonsense, it's simply a convenience thing.

And don't forget to answer that question regarding a dog's life and your

son's life...

Hrvoje Nezic wrote:

> -

> " James H " <james

>

> Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:48 PM

> Re: Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing

>

>> I agree with you that testing on unwilling humans is not correct. That

>> is, unless they are on death row (but that's another matter!...).

>>

>

> Death row is not another matter. To torture sentient beings is wrong, quite

> regardless if they are on death row or not.

>

>> But when it comes to animals if, say, the only way to save my son's life

>> was to perform vivisection on an animal then of course I'd agree to it.

>>

>

> If my son's life would be saved by torturing your son, why I wouldn't

> agree to it, according to your logic?

>

>> So, for me, the same applies to any person and any animal.

>>

>> The change in consistency is because I believe humans are worth more

>> than animals. I would rather an animal suffer or die than a human suffer

>> or die.

>>

>

> You are obviously a speciesist (chauvenist at species level). I cannot

> believe that I read such statements on a vegan list. I thought that this

> list

> was for people who don't support abuse and torturing of non-human

> animals, but sadly this is not the case.

>

> I have a question for you: are humans animals? Are humans primates?

> Are humans mammals? And if humans are animals, how can we speak

> about humans *and* animals? Complete nonsense.

>

> Regarding the question: " Are humans animals? " , of course this is true.

> Everyone who attended elementary course in biology should know this.

>

> ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author,

> there may be another side to the story you have not heard.

> ---------------------------

> Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped?

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>

> Un: send a blank message to -

>

November 28, 2006

I am very much in agreement with you, I also went vegan for animal rights

reasons, and I am absolutely for the abolition of animal slavery and

exploitation. I was also proud and positive to tell some animal eaters this

the other day, I did not meander on about factory farming or the worst of

cruelties as I have done in the past, that is reformist talk! I just pointed

out I was an abolitionist, against the use of animals for food and other

human uses. I'm sure the anti-slavery ppl like Abraham Lincoln were not coy

about saying they were abolitionists, so nor am I in relation to animals.

They are not ours to eat wear or experiment on.

However unlike you, I am no longer shocked to hear views like James' on a

vegan list, since some vegans are vegans for reasons other than animal

rights reasons, personal health or the environment, for instance. Not all

vegans are anti-speciesist, and some are more or less speciesist than

others, even some who are vegan to reduce animal suffering. I know I need to

read Joan Dunayer, have you read any of her books? I believe she provides an

analysis of the different ways of thinking and explains about what she terms

new-speciesists and old-speciesists.

I know what is on my list for buying at the Xmas Without Cruelty now, one of

her books.

Also completely agree with you about death row prisoners.

Lesley

On Behalf Of

Hrvoje Nezic

28 November 2006 13:37

Re: Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing

-

" James H " <james

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:48 PM

Re: Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing

>I agree with you that testing on unwilling humans is not correct. That

> is, unless they are on death row (but that's another matter!...).

Death row is not another matter. To torture sentient beings is wrong, quite

regardless if they are on death row or not.

>

> But when it comes to animals if, say, the only way to save my son's life

> was to perform vivisection on an animal then of course I'd agree to it.

If my son's life would be saved by torturing your son, why I wouldn't

agree to it, according to your logic?

> So, for me, the same applies to any person and any animal.

>

> The change in consistency is because I believe humans are worth more

> than animals. I would rather an animal suffer or die than a human suffer

> or die.

You are obviously a speciesist (chauvenist at species level). I cannot

believe that I read such statements on a vegan list. I thought that this

list

was for people who don't support abuse and torturing of non-human

animals, but sadly this is not the case.

I have a question for you: are humans animals? Are humans primates?

Are humans mammals? And if humans are animals, how can we speak

about humans *and* animals? Complete nonsense.

Regarding the question: " Are humans animals? " , of course this is true.

Everyone who attended elementary course in biology should know this.

~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author,

there may be another side to the story you have not heard.

---------------------------

Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>

Un: send a blank message to -

November 28, 2006

Lesley,

If I wasn't a speciesist, what would I do?...

What about all the flies that get killed when I drive my car? Or the odd

rabbit, squirrel or cat that inevitably get killed on the road from time

to time? Does that stop you (or Hrvoje) from driving? And, arguably,

driving is less essential than the medical health of mankind, so how can

such things as driving be justified from a non-speciesist point of view??

And what about eating bread? A lot of insects get killed during the

manufacturing of bread (even organic).

What about the living bacteria inside me? Yes, that's very extreme isn't

it, but it's all about where you draw your line.

I draw my line right beneath humans, but at least my line is a straight

one!...

Lesley Dove wrote:

>

> Well at least you are openly admitting to being a speciesist.

>

> Has anyone read this interview or anything else about Joan Dunayer?

> I've not read any of her books but she is closer than Singer to the

> views of

> many animal rights advocates these days, has anyone read any of her books?

>

> http://animalliberationfront.com/Saints/Authors/Interviews/Interview_JDunaye

> <http://animalliberationfront.com/Saints/Authors/Interviews/Interview_JDunaye>

> r.htm

>

> Lesley

>

> <%40>

> [ <%40>] On

> Behalf Of

> James H

> 28 November 2006 12:49

> <%40>

> Re: Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing

>

> I agree with you that testing on unwilling humans is not correct. That

> is, unless they are on death row (but that's another matter!...).

>

> But when it comes to animals if, say, the only way to save my son's life

> was to perform vivisection on an animal then of course I'd agree to it.

> So, for me, the same applies to any person and any animal.

>

> The change in consistency is because I believe humans are worth more

> than animals. I would rather an animal suffer or die than a human suffer

> or die.

>

> Lesley Dove wrote:

> >

> > Species differences count for a lot in making vivisection

> unreliable, and

> > even if some of it is reliable, if the end justified the means, then the

> > nazi experiments on humans would also be justified. A lot was

> learned from

> > them, but it does not make it justified. If you justify it on

> animals, but

> > not by the Nazis on humans, it's not consistent and it is not animal

> > rights.

> > Peter Singer I have always said is not a real advocate for animal

> > rights, as

> > was seen on the programme.

> >

> > Lesley

> >

> > <%40>

> <%40>

> > [ <%40>

> <%40>] On

> > Behalf Of

> > James H

> > 28 November 2006 10:08

> > <%40>

> <%40>

> > Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing

> >

> > But surely some animal experiments do yield valid results. Isn't it just

> > wishful thinking to try and believe otherwise?

> >

> > Towards the end of the programme they questioned a guy - I think he was

> > the author of the 'Animal Liberation' book - who (to everyone's

> > surprise) agreed that some particular research on animals was

> > worthwhile. Unless I got that wrong, surely that counts for a lot.

> >

> > Cheers,

> > James

> >

> > nejmai wrote:

> > >

> > > Did anyone see this? My partner and I were quite disappointed. Not

> > > once, but twice did the scientists make the statement that " all

> > > medical advances " (or all " significant " advances, said one) were the

> > > results of animal experiments. What crap. They also said that testing

> > > of animals on cosmetics is no longer done..patently not true. Despite

> > > his testament otherwise, the filmmaker seemed to have his mind made up

> > > from the get-go.

> > >

> > > <%40>

> <%40>

> > <%40>,

> > > peter VV <swpgh01 wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing Mon 27 Nov, 9:00 pm - 10:20

> > > pm 80mins

> > > > Can killing animals to save humans ever be justified? That's the

> > > question at the heart of the biggest battle in the history of animal

> > > rights - the campaign to stop Oxford University building an £18m new

> > > animal lab.

> > > >

> > > > As the demonstrations turn violent, film maker Adam Wishart has a

> > > ringside seat at the conflict. Out on the marches and talking to the

> > > scientists, Adam asks if vivisection actually works, and, if it does,

> > > can it be justified?

> > > >

> > > > Given unique access to the animal labs, this film shows you what

> > > actually happens to the rats and monkeys as researchers explore the

> > > workings of their brains. And we follow the story of Sean Gardiner,

> > > one young boy whose life could be transformed by animal research.

> > > Strong language and upsetting scenes.

> > > >

> > > > Peter H

> > > >

> > > > Try the all-new Mail . " The New Version is radically easier

> > > to use " – The Wall Street Journal

> > > >

November 28, 2006

Lesley, I am a vegan primarily because I don't believe in unecessary

suffering to animals.

I'm not a wishy washy vegan either. I *never* consumer dairy (contrary

to a lot of other vegans I know) or drink beers or whatever else that

I'm not sure about. So don't worry about my reasons for being vegan.

I've been vegan for 10 years, and I was always against animal research

because I thought it was cruel and was led to believe it didn't yield

worthwhile results. But having listened to the pro-vivisection

arguments, I find them hard to disagree with.

5 years ago, I would have been amazed that I now have these views, but

they're not due to a shortcoming on my part. It isn't a bad thing and

it's not easy to take a step back and challenge your beliefs.

Lesley Dove wrote:

>

> I am very much in agreement with you, I also went vegan for animal rights

> reasons, and I am absolutely for the abolition of animal slavery and

> exploitation. I was also proud and positive to tell some animal eaters

> this

> the other day, I did not meander on about factory farming or the worst of

> cruelties as I have done in the past, that is reformist talk! I just

> pointed

> out I was an abolitionist, against the use of animals for food and other

> human uses. I'm sure the anti-slavery ppl like Abraham Lincoln were

> not coy

> about saying they were abolitionists, so nor am I in relation to animals.

> They are not ours to eat wear or experiment on.

>

> However unlike you, I am no longer shocked to hear views like James' on a

> vegan list, since some vegans are vegans for reasons other than animal

> rights reasons, personal health or the environment, for instance. Not all

> vegans are anti-speciesist, and some are more or less speciesist than

> others, even some who are vegan to reduce animal suffering. I know I

> need to

> read Joan Dunayer, have you read any of her books? I believe she

> provides an

> analysis of the different ways of thinking and explains about what she

> terms

> new-speciesists and old-speciesists.

>

> I know what is on my list for buying at the Xmas Without Cruelty now,

> one of

> her books.

>

> Also completely agree with you about death row prisoners.

>

> Lesley

>

> <%40>

> [ <%40>] On

> Behalf Of

> Hrvoje Nezic

> 28 November 2006 13:37

> <%40>

> Re: Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing

>

> -

> " James H " <james <james%40telestial.org>>

> < <%40>>

> Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:48 PM

> Re: Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing

>

> >I agree with you that testing on unwilling humans is not correct. That

> > is, unless they are on death row (but that's another matter!...).

>

> Death row is not another matter. To torture sentient beings is wrong,

> quite

> regardless if they are on death row or not.

>

> >

> > But when it comes to animals if, say, the only way to save my son's life

> > was to perform vivisection on an animal then of course I'd agree to it.

>

> If my son's life would be saved by torturing your son, why I wouldn't

> agree to it, according to your logic?

>

> > So, for me, the same applies to any person and any animal.

> >

> > The change in consistency is because I believe humans are worth more

> > than animals. I would rather an animal suffer or die than a human suffer

> > or die.

>

> You are obviously a speciesist (chauvenist at species level). I cannot

> believe that I read such statements on a vegan list. I thought that this

> list

> was for people who don't support abuse and torturing of non-human

> animals, but sadly this is not the case.

>

> I have a question for you: are humans animals? Are humans primates?

> Are humans mammals? And if humans are animals, how can we speak

> about humans *and* animals? Complete nonsense.

>

> Regarding the question: " Are humans animals? " , of course this is true.

> Everyone who attended elementary course in biology should know this.

>

> ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author,

> there may be another side to the story you have not heard.

> -------------------------

> Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped?

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>

> Un: send a blank message to

> -

> <-%40>

>

November 28, 2006

Good clarification John.

But although I seem to be in a minority of one, I still have not seen a

post from anyone that says they would not sacrifice an animal's life in

order to save their child's life.

John Davis wrote:

> Hi,

>

>>> The change in consistency is because I believe humans are worth more

>>> than animals. I would rather an animal suffer or die than a human suffer

>>> or die.

>>>

>> You are obviously a speciesist I cannot

>> believe that I read such statements on a vegan list.

>>

>

> To step in here, I do not think it is necessarily speciesist to place

> greater importance on humans than other animals, or indeed vice versa. What

> is speciest is to do so without rational justification and a stated

> framework within which to make such a statement.

>

> For example. If one considers the ability to reason a framework for defining

> importance, then humans are more important than rats. If one considers the

> ability to fly a framework for defining importance, then bats are more

> important than humans. For many people, including animal rights supporters,

> the concept of suffering is frequently used to define importance. Therefore

> if a human is more capable than suffering than a rat, then the human is more

> important.

>

> Veganism is not incompatable with this view that humans are more important

> than animals, because it does not say that they are _infinitely_ more

> important. Which is to say the dietry whim of a human is not placed above

> the life of an animal.

>

> All of which said, personally I don't believe humans more important than

> other animals. But to believe so is not necessarily speciesist, and

> certainly not incompatible with veganism.

>

> John

>

> -

> " Hrvoje Nezic " <hrvoje.nezic

>

> Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:37 PM

> Re: Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing

>

>> -

>> " James H " <james

>>

>> Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:48 PM

>> Re: Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing

>>

>>> I agree with you that testing on unwilling humans is not correct. That

>>> is, unless they are on death row (but that's another matter!...).

>>>

>> Death row is not another matter. To torture sentient beings is wrong,

>> quite

>> regardless if they are on death row or not.

>>

>>> But when it comes to animals if, say, the only way to save my son's life

>>> was to perform vivisection on an animal then of course I'd agree to it.

>>>

>> If my son's life would be saved by torturing your son, why I wouldn't

>> agree to it, according to your logic?

>>

>>> So, for me, the same applies to any person and any animal.

>>>

>>> The change in consistency is because I believe humans are worth more

>>> than animals. I would rather an animal suffer or die than a human suffer

>>> or die.

>>>

>> You are obviously a speciesist (chauvenist at species level). I cannot

>> believe that I read such statements on a vegan list. I thought that this

>> list

>> was for people who don't support abuse and torturing of non-human

>> animals, but sadly this is not the case.

>>

>> I have a question for you: are humans animals? Are humans primates?

>> Are humans mammals? And if humans are animals, how can we speak

>> about humans *and* animals? Complete nonsense.

>>

>> Regarding the question: " Are humans animals? " , of course this is true.

>> Everyone who attended elementary course in biology should know this.

>>

>> ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>> Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author,

>> there may be another side to the story you have not heard.

>> ---------------------------

>> Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped?

>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>> Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>

>> Un: send a blank message to -

>>

November 28, 2006

On 28 Nov 2006, at 14:47, James H wrote:

> Good clarification John.

>

> But although I seem to be in a minority of one, I still have not

> seen a

> post from anyone that says they would not sacrifice an animal's

> life in

> order to save their child's life.

>

You're not in a minority of one, James. There's a very difficult grey

area when it comes to areas of animal-research which have

demonstrable benefits for humans. The UK Vegan Society defines

veganism as (parapharasing): " minimising unnecessary animal

suffering " . But of course you then have the difficult problem of

defining what is " unnecessary " . There are no simple black and white

answers to this, whatever the hard-liners at either end of the

spectrum would like to have us believe.

The whole " speciesist' notion is nonsense too, as others have pointed

out. Even the most hard-line AR person can be shown to be

" speciesist " at some level (house dust mites, anyone ?).

Unfortunately this whole subject area tends to generate more heat

than light when it comes up for discussion, as so many people tend to

be polarised one way or the other. I'm happy to let the discussion

continue as it's been largely good-natured up until now, but if it

becomes abusive then I will have to intervene.

Paul

November 28, 2006

You are probably not getting many answers because it's a silly hypothetical

cliché that we are all a bit sick of hearing from the anti-animal rights

people!

Yes, I'm sure I would choose my child over an animal if I had to save one or

the other but this does not equate to the reality of vivisection,

http://www.buav.org/faqs.html#faq11

Lesley

On Behalf Of

James H

28 November 2006 14:48

Re: Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing

Good clarification John.

But although I seem to be in a minority of one, I still have not seen a

post from anyone that says they would not sacrifice an animal's life in

order to save their child's life.

John Davis wrote:

> Hi,

>

>>> The change in consistency is because I believe humans are worth more

>>> than animals. I would rather an animal suffer or die than a human suffer

>>> or die.

>>>

>> You are obviously a speciesist I cannot

>> believe that I read such statements on a vegan list.

>>

>

> To step in here, I do not think it is necessarily speciesist to place

> greater importance on humans than other animals, or indeed vice versa.

What

> is speciest is to do so without rational justification and a stated

> framework within which to make such a statement.

>

> For example. If one considers the ability to reason a framework for

defining

> importance, then humans are more important than rats. If one considers the

> ability to fly a framework for defining importance, then bats are more

> important than humans. For many people, including animal rights

supporters,

> the concept of suffering is frequently used to define importance.

Therefore

> if a human is more capable than suffering than a rat, then the human is

more

> important.

>

> Veganism is not incompatable with this view that humans are more important

> than animals, because it does not say that they are _infinitely_ more

> important. Which is to say the dietry whim of a human is not placed above

> the life of an animal.

>

> All of which said, personally I don't believe humans more important than

> other animals. But to believe so is not necessarily speciesist, and

> certainly not incompatible with veganism.

>

> John

>

> -

> " Hrvoje Nezic " <hrvoje.nezic

>

> Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:37 PM

> Re: Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing

>

>> -

>> " James H " <james

>>

>> Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:48 PM

>> Re: Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing

>>

>>> I agree with you that testing on unwilling humans is not correct. That

>>> is, unless they are on death row (but that's another matter!...).

>>>

>> Death row is not another matter. To torture sentient beings is wrong,

>> quite

>> regardless if they are on death row or not.

>>

>>> But when it comes to animals if, say, the only way to save my son's life

>>> was to perform vivisection on an animal then of course I'd agree to it.

>>>

>> If my son's life would be saved by torturing your son, why I wouldn't

>> agree to it, according to your logic?

>>

>>> So, for me, the same applies to any person and any animal.

>>>

>>> The change in consistency is because I believe humans are worth more

>>> than animals. I would rather an animal suffer or die than a human suffer

>>> or die.

>>>

>> You are obviously a speciesist (chauvenist at species level). I cannot

>> believe that I read such statements on a vegan list. I thought that this

>> list

>> was for people who don't support abuse and torturing of non-human

>> animals, but sadly this is not the case.

>>

>> I have a question for you: are humans animals? Are humans primates?

>> Are humans mammals? And if humans are animals, how can we speak

>> about humans *and* animals? Complete nonsense.

>>

>> Regarding the question: " Are humans animals? " , of course this is true.

>> Everyone who attended elementary course in biology should know this.

>>

>> ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>> Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author,

>> there may be another side to the story you have not heard.

>> ---------------------------

>> Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped?

>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>> Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>

>> Un: send a blank message to -

>>

November 28, 2006

Hi,

> I know I need to

> read Joan Dunayer, have you read any of her books?

From what little I've read of her (the occasional article or letter), I find

her thinking muddled and naive. She seems to have this improbable vision of

some animal utopia where all species lives happily together, and little

understanding of the complexities of inter-species interaction. Most damning

from my perspective, she seems unable to seperate the concept of parity and

equality, by which I mean that it is obvious that not all animals are the

same, so have different needs and so are - according to different frameworks

of perspective - unequal. Which is not speciesist, any more than noting that

men and women are different and unequal in different respects and regards is

sexist.

But that's just me. And perhaps in the freedom of a book she is better able

to explain herself than in the confines or shorter works.

John

November 28, 2006

Hi,

For myself, if someone said 'its an animal's life or that of a loved one,

choose', then I would sacrifice the animal, even as I knew I had no right to

do so. Basically because at heart I'm selfish. Or at least, not selfless

enough in this instance.

John

-

" James H " <james

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 2:47 PM

Re: Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing

> Good clarification John.

>

> But although I seem to be in a minority of one, I still have not seen a

> post from anyone that says they would not sacrifice an animal's life in

> order to save their child's life.

>

> John Davis wrote:

>> Hi,

>>

>>>> The change in consistency is because I believe humans are worth more

>>>> than animals. I would rather an animal suffer or die than a human

>>>> suffer

>>>> or die.

>>>>

>>> You are obviously a speciesist I cannot

>>> believe that I read such statements on a vegan list.

>>>

>>

>> To step in here, I do not think it is necessarily speciesist to place

>> greater importance on humans than other animals, or indeed vice versa.

>> What

>> is speciest is to do so without rational justification and a stated

>> framework within which to make such a statement.

>>

>> For example. If one considers the ability to reason a framework for

>> defining

>> importance, then humans are more important than rats. If one considers

>> the

>> ability to fly a framework for defining importance, then bats are more

>> important than humans. For many people, including animal rights

>> supporters,

>> the concept of suffering is frequently used to define importance.

>> Therefore

>> if a human is more capable than suffering than a rat, then the human is

>> more

>> important.

>>

>> Veganism is not incompatable with this view that humans are more

>> important

>> than animals, because it does not say that they are _infinitely_ more

>> important. Which is to say the dietry whim of a human is not placed above

>> the life of an animal.

>>

>> All of which said, personally I don't believe humans more important than

>> other animals. But to believe so is not necessarily speciesist, and

>> certainly not incompatible with veganism.

>>

>> John

>>

>> -

>> " Hrvoje Nezic " <hrvoje.nezic

>>

>> Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:37 PM

>> Re: Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing

>>

>>> -

>>> " James H " <james

>>>

>>> Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:48 PM

>>> Re: Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing

>>>

>>>> I agree with you that testing on unwilling humans is not correct. That

>>>> is, unless they are on death row (but that's another matter!...).

>>>>

>>> Death row is not another matter. To torture sentient beings is wrong,

>>> quite

>>> regardless if they are on death row or not.

>>>

>>>> But when it comes to animals if, say, the only way to save my son's

>>>> life

>>>> was to perform vivisection on an animal then of course I'd agree to it.

>>>>

>>> If my son's life would be saved by torturing your son, why I wouldn't

>>> agree to it, according to your logic?

>>>

>>>> So, for me, the same applies to any person and any animal.

>>>>

>>>> The change in consistency is because I believe humans are worth more

>>>> than animals. I would rather an animal suffer or die than a human

>>>> suffer

>>>> or die.

>>>>

>>> You are obviously a speciesist (chauvenist at species level). I cannot

>>> believe that I read such statements on a vegan list. I thought that this

>>> list

>>> was for people who don't support abuse and torturing of non-human

>>> animals, but sadly this is not the case.

>>>

>>> I have a question for you: are humans animals? Are humans primates?

>>> Are humans mammals? And if humans are animals, how can we speak

>>> about humans *and* animals? Complete nonsense.

>>>

>>> Regarding the question: " Are humans animals? " , of course this is true.

>>> Everyone who attended elementary course in biology should know this.

>>>

>>> ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>>> Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author,

>>> there may be another side to the story you have not heard.

>>> ---------------------------

>>> Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped?

>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>>> Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>

>>> Un: send a blank message to -

>>>

November 28, 2006

Hypothetically, I might take an animal's life to save my son's. But I might

equally kill a human to save the life of my dog etc.

On Behalf Of

James H

28 November 2006 14:48

Re: Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing

Good clarification John.

But although I seem to be in a minority of one, I still have not seen a post

from anyone that says they would not sacrifice an animal's life in order to

save their child's life.

John Davis wrote:

> Hi,

>

>>> The change in consistency is because I believe humans are worth more

>>> than animals. I would rather an animal suffer or die than a human

>>> suffer or die.

>>>

>> You are obviously a speciesist I cannot believe that I read such

>> statements on a vegan list.

>>

>

> To step in here, I do not think it is necessarily speciesist to place

> greater importance on humans than other animals, or indeed vice versa.

> What is speciest is to do so without rational justification and a

> stated framework within which to make such a statement.

>

> For example. If one considers the ability to reason a framework for

> defining importance, then humans are more important than rats. If one

> considers the ability to fly a framework for defining importance, then

> bats are more important than humans. For many people, including animal

> rights supporters, the concept of suffering is frequently used to

> define importance. Therefore if a human is more capable than suffering

> than a rat, then the human is more important.

>

> Veganism is not incompatable with this view that humans are more

> important than animals, because it does not say that they are

> _infinitely_ more important. Which is to say the dietry whim of a

> human is not placed above the life of an animal.

>

> All of which said, personally I don't believe humans more important

> than other animals. But to believe so is not necessarily speciesist,

> and certainly not incompatible with veganism.

>

> John

>

> -

> " Hrvoje Nezic " <hrvoje.nezic

>

> Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:37 PM

> Re: Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing

>

>> -

>> " James H " <james

>>

>> Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:48 PM

>> Re: Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing

>>

>>> I agree with you that testing on unwilling humans is not correct.

>>> That is, unless they are on death row (but that's another matter!...).

>>>

>> Death row is not another matter. To torture sentient beings is wrong,

>> quite regardless if they are on death row or not.

>>

>>> But when it comes to animals if, say, the only way to save my son's

>>> life was to perform vivisection on an animal then of course I'd agree to

it.

>>>

>> If my son's life would be saved by torturing your son, why I wouldn't

>> agree to it, according to your logic?

>>

>>> So, for me, the same applies to any person and any animal.

>>>

>>> The change in consistency is because I believe humans are worth more

>>> than animals. I would rather an animal suffer or die than a human

>>> suffer or die.

>>>

>> You are obviously a speciesist (chauvenist at species level). I

>> cannot believe that I read such statements on a vegan list. I thought

>> that this list was for people who don't support abuse and torturing

>> of non-human animals, but sadly this is not the case.

>>

>> I have a question for you: are humans animals? Are humans primates?

>> Are humans mammals? And if humans are animals, how can we speak about

>> humans *and* animals? Complete nonsense.

>>

>> Regarding the question: " Are humans animals? " , of course this is true.

>> Everyone who attended elementary course in biology should know this.

>>

>> ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>> Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author,

>> there may be another side to the story you have not heard.

>> ---------------------------

>> Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped?

>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>> Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>

>> Un: send a blank message to

>> -

>>

November 28, 2006

Is anyone else having the problem that their messages are not arriving on

this list in the right order? Some of mine have not shown up, while other

later ones have!

Lesley

_____

On Behalf Of

Michael Benis

28 November 2006 17:55

RE: Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing

Hypothetically, I might take an animal's life to save my son's. But I might

equally kill a human to save the life of my dog etc.

@ <%40> .com

[@ <%40> .com] On

Behalf Of

James H

28 November 2006 14:48

@ <%40> .com

Re: Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing

Good clarification John.

But although I seem to be in a minority of one, I still have not seen a post

from anyone that says they would not sacrifice an animal's life in order to

save their child's life.

John Davis wrote:

> Hi,

>

>>> The change in consistency is because I believe humans are worth more

>>> than animals. I would rather an animal suffer or die than a human

>>> suffer or die.

>>>

>> You are obviously a speciesist I cannot believe that I read such

>> statements on a vegan list.

>>

>

> To step in here, I do not think it is necessarily speciesist to place

> greater importance on humans than other animals, or indeed vice versa.

> What is speciest is to do so without rational justification and a

> stated framework within which to make such a statement.

>

> For example. If one considers the ability to reason a framework for

> defining importance, then humans are more important than rats. If one

> considers the ability to fly a framework for defining importance, then

> bats are more important than humans. For many people, including animal

> rights supporters, the concept of suffering is frequently used to

> define importance. Therefore if a human is more capable than suffering

> than a rat, then the human is more important.

>

> Veganism is not incompatable with this view that humans are more

> important than animals, because it does not say that they are

> _infinitely_ more important. Which is to say the dietry whim of a

> human is not placed above the life of an animal.

>

> All of which said, personally I don't believe humans more important

> than other animals. But to believe so is not necessarily speciesist,

> and certainly not incompatible with veganism.

>

> John

>

> -

> " Hrvoje Nezic " <hrvoje.nezic@ <hrvoje.nezic%40envox-lab.hr>

envox-lab.hr>

> <@ <%40> .com>

> Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:37 PM

> Re: Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing

>

>> -

>> " James H " <james (AT) telestial (DOT) <james%40telestial.org> org>

>> <@ <%40> .com>

>> Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:48 PM

>> Re: Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing

>>

>>> I agree with you that testing on unwilling humans is not correct.

>>> That is, unless they are on death row (but that's another matter!...).

>>>

>> Death row is not another matter. To torture sentient beings is wrong,

>> quite regardless if they are on death row or not.

>>

>>> But when it comes to animals if, say, the only way to save my son's

>>> life was to perform vivisection on an animal then of course I'd agree to

it.

>>>

>> If my son's life would be saved by torturing your son, why I wouldn't

>> agree to it, according to your logic?

>>

>>> So, for me, the same applies to any person and any animal.

>>>

>>> The change in consistency is because I believe humans are worth more

>>> than animals. I would rather an animal suffer or die than a human

>>> suffer or die.

>>>

>> You are obviously a speciesist (chauvenist at species level). I

>> cannot believe that I read such statements on a vegan list. I thought

>> that this list was for people who don't support abuse and torturing

>> of non-human animals, but sadly this is not the case.

>>

>> I have a question for you: are humans animals? Are humans primates?

>> Are humans mammals? And if humans are animals, how can we speak about

>> humans *and* animals? Complete nonsense.

>>

>> Regarding the question: " Are humans animals? " , of course this is true.

>> Everyone who attended elementary course in biology should know this.

>>

>> ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>> Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author,

>> there may be another side to the story you have not heard.

>> -------------------------

>> Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped?

>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>> Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>

>> Un: send a blank message to

>> - <-%40>

@

>>

November 28, 2006

Thanks, I was afraid of something like that, clearly different species are..

well.. different, but I can imagine all that is all likely to be addressed

in the book.

I was never happy with Singer's way of looking at things.

I'd like to know how she answers difficult questions of accidental killing

like stepping on snails and other small animals, and headlice (which I do

find no choice but to kill when the kids get them).

I don't think any of us is able to be completely non-speciesist.

What about Steven Best or Lee Hall who have written books about animal

rights philosophy, tactics, etc? Has anyone read anything by them?

Lesley

_____

On Behalf Of

John Davis

28 November 2006 16:16