Say Anything Blog

anyone see the episode of bullshit on these animal rights terrorists ?

So the terrorists are the ones making phone calls, not torturing primates. Gotcha.

Dave: You finally got one right!

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

No Dave, you havn’t quite got it. The terrorists are the ones putting the bombs on inocent families’ door-steps.

Don’t forget strapping bombs on small children and launching thousands of rockets against strictly civilian targets.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

So the terrorists are the ones making phone calls, not torturing primates. Gotcha.

Dave, how about I enlist an army of like-minded people and have them call your home and pester your wife and kids until you change your views on infanticide?  How about I publish your home address and phone number?

You put up with that crap for months and tell me it isn’t a form of terrorism.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Nicely said Rob, and don’t forget the more traditional forms of terrorism that Animal Rights groups use… like bombs for example.

What I don’t get is this: If they want animals to have the same rights as humans, why do they treat humans like shit?

It’s time they put their actions in the right direction: respect for ALL animals (and that includes humans)

Calling this “terrorism” is a slap in the face to the thousands of victims of actual terrorism around the world.

Calling this “terrorism” is a slap in the face to the thousands of victims of actual terrorism around the world.

A slap in the face is better than being blown up.

Calling this “terrorism” is a slap in the face to the thousands of victims of actual terrorism around the world.

Are you suggesting that the Animal Liberation Front shouldn’t be classified as a terrorist organization (as it is, by the US and other governments) because it hasn’t blown-up enough civilians yet?

That’s a good question, why couldn’t law enforcement be called in. It was called in here.......

REWARD INCREASED TO $30,000 IN CASE
WHERE ANIMAL LIBERATION GROUP CLAIMED RESPONSIBILITY FOR TERRORIST ATTACK
ON ELDERLY WOMAN WHO WAS UNINTENDED TARGET

http://losangeles.fbi.gov/pressrel/2006/la071806.htm

Are you suggesting that the Animal Liberation Front shouldn’t be classified as a terrorist organization (as it is, by the US and other governments) because it hasn’t blown-up enough civilians yet?

1)ALF wasn’t involved in this, and I have no idea why you brought them up, and
2)There’s a difference between phone calls and suicide bombs. Do you know what it is?

Dave: Yes, the phone calls are used to set up the terrorism, and are also used to trigger the IEDs.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

I brought ALF up because they claimed responsibility about a month ago for leaving a bomb on the doorstep of another UCLA medical researcher:

http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/press_releases/pr_07_12_12_fairbanksucla.htm

Death threats, personal attacks, threats to family members and real bombs are all tools of the ALF.

Anything that involves destruction of property to force people to an ideology qualifies as terrorism.  It’s not reasoned debate, is it?

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

I brought ALF up because they claimed responsibility about a month ago for leaving a bomb on the doorstep of another UCLA medical researcher

Ringach was harassed by phone — his office phone number is no longer active — and e-mail, as well as through demonstrations in front of his home

...which has nothing to do with this specific incident.

You may not be able to make an association between these two events, but I expect Ringach did.

Annoying phone calls are not acts of terrorism.

Agreed.  But threats and psychological harasment, backed up with the real possibility of real bombs are.

If all we were talking about here was annoying phone calls, I don’t think the guy would have given up his career.

If you were an animal, which everyone is, would you want people marching all over your home, bothering you? Well, neither does nature want us bothering with them. Therefore, find a better way than disturbing a living creature. So many people claim animals a psychologically damaged by human actions, so it’s only fair to apply the same rule to humans if you want “equal” treatment.

*are psychologically

In other words, if you don’t want an animal to be psychologically damaged by human visitations, then you shouldn’t want a human to be psychologically damaged by anything equally disturbing.

Actually, ss, the analogy doesn’t work.  As far as we know, animals aren’t able to contemplate their existence, but humans can.  Therefore, that which is traumatic to humans, psychologically speaking, isn’t so for nonhuman animals.  We have animal bodies, but our consciousness is beyond animal consciousness.  For instance, animals don’t practice terrorism.  They kill for food and to defend their territory.  Humans, on the other hand, kill for food and to defend their territory, but also to force others to their will and to eliminate those who won’t bend to their will.  Big difference.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Dan: You are correct.  All of the tactics used were designed to intimidate the subject and to remove his freedom to act.  That is terrorism.  It just wasn’t murderous terrorism, but that would be the next step, if he hadn’t submitted to their demands or cut and run.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

You may not be able to make an association between these two events, but I expect Ringach did.

Sure, and the whores going into Planned Parenthood might make a connection between the pro-life protestors and Eric Rudolph, but that doesn’t mean they are connected--it doesn’t mean all pro-life advocates (or all animal rights activists) are terrorists, just because some have resorted to terrorism for the same cause.

All of the tactics used were designed to intimidate the subject and to remove his freedom to act.

I see.
So you think that the ALF were going to give Ringach a free pass?

So you think that the ALF were going to give Ringach a free pass?

The fact that both groups happen to share a common goal in this one instance in no way means that they both support using acts of terrorism to accomplish it. Some animal rights activists use terrorism to accomplish their goal, just as some pro-lifers use terrorism. It’s absurd to say that everyone who supports that particular cause is a “terrorist.”

It’s absurd to say that everyone who supports that particular cause is a “terrorist.”

Agreed.  And I didn’t.  But unfortunately, the threat of terrorism, even if it comes from a single phone call is a very powerfull motivational force for a family.

Other than a handful of abortion clinic bombings, give us any comparable number of “terrorist” actions by pro-life groups.  If you want to count picketing abortion mills, I’ll give you that, but then we have to give equal time to all the picketing the lefties do, which is overwhelmingly greater than anything you can pin on pro-life groups.  No equality there at all.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

So....they’ll terrorize people to defend animals, climb trees and camp out to keep them from being cut down, but they’ll abort a human fetus right to late term and viciously defend their right to do so.

Is there something wrong with that picture, or is it just me?

http://saw.revolt.org/node/51

Does this mean Malkin’s ilk are guilty of “terrorism” too?

Pilgrim ejaculates:

So....they’ll terrorize people to defend animals, climb trees and camp out to keep them from being cut down, but they’ll abort a human fetus right to late term and viciously defend their right to do so.

All animal welfare activists are pro-choice? I had no idea! How’d you learn this?

Does this mean Malkin’s ilk are guilty of “terrorism” too?

Well that really depends on how many bombs they’ve left on people’s door-steps.

>= 1, then yes.

Well that really depends on how many bombs they’ve left on people’s door-steps.

>= 1, then yes.
<1, then no.

Listen Dave, about this whole “a phone call is not terrorism” thing.  Receiving death threats and having your family intimidated by members of an organization that has recently conducted an undisputed act of terrorism against a close colleague of yours, amounts to terrorism in most people’s books.

Threats are are one thing, but when they are carried out (or attempted) then a line has been crossed.

I don’t think anyone was acusing the “Primate Freedom Project” of terrorism.  The point was that Ringach and Fairbanks were victims of terrorist tactics.

Receiving death threats

Do you have proof he received death threats?

and having your family intimidated by members of an organization that has recently conducted an undisputed act of terrorism against a close colleague of yours

ALF and the UCLA Primate Freedom Project are two different orgainizations.

I don’t think anyone was acusing the “Primate Freedom Project” of terrorism.

As someone whose family has been harrassed by thugs who were angry because my father was just doing my job I can tell you that “terrorism” describes perfectly what these people are doing.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Dan: And he does it again.

Rob Port does; look at the title.

The title reads “Appeasing Animal Rights Terrorists”.  Ringach’s “you win” email was addressed to the press office of ALF.

All The Primate Freedom Project did was publish his home address, email and phone number.

Of course I don’t have proof that he was intimidated by the ALF.  But if they didn’t do it, for a bunch of extremists, they must be pretty lazy.

I suppose they were calling him to see how he was doing, and to wish him well, then?  Why did he leave town?  You extremists are too funny.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Dave, terrorism is the use of terror to get what you want.

If you don’t understand that having a group like this go after your family - to begin harassing you in your private life - is terrifying then you are a moron.

But, of course, we already knew that you’re a moron given that you also think people who eat burgers are Nazis.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I suppose they were calling him to see how he was doing, and to wish him well, then?

This professor wants to torture primates, and be free from any criticism from his actions. He’s just a pansy and a hypocrite. If he’s not even willing to put up with some annoying phone calls, isn’t it pretty obvious that his “experiments” (read: torture) on these primates wasn’t that important anyway?

For instance, animals don’t practice terrorism. They kill for food and to defend their territory. Humans, on the other hand, kill for food and to defend their territory, but also to force others to their will and to eliminate those who won’t bend to their will. Big difference.

I was trying to prove a point about what these radical vegetarians are trying to prove. If they want animals to have rights and respect, then humans should also be included.

and they do it on the basis that animals have feelings. Therefore, since they “know” that animals and humans have feelings, then in their eyes, both should be equally respected.

If he’s not even willing to put up with some annoying phone calls, isn’t it pretty obvious that his “experiments” (read: torture) on these primates wasn’t that important anyway?

You yourself now admit that the phone calls were harrassing.

You have no children, so maybe you can’t understand this, but just imagine that you have a little girl and I called her up and told her that - because you support infanticide - that you might smother her in her sleep if she’s not a good girl.

Would you then consider yourself a pansy, Davey, for acting to protect your family from harrassing goons?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

If you don’t understand that having a group like this go after your family - to begin harassing you in your private life - is terrifying then you are a moron.

Then pro-life activists who harass Planned Parenthood workers (or clients) are “terrorists” too--they’re in the same class as Usama bin Laden. Gee, now Hamas doesn’t seem that bad--all they’re doing is making annoying phone calls!

I had two JWs come to my door the other day, harassing me (in my private life!) about my religious views. They’re terrorists. Some anti-globalization activists accosted me at the entrance to Wal-Mart and criticized my consumer decisions--those terrorists!!!

Was the kid who ordered all those pizzas for Smokey McPot count as a “terrorist” too? Telemarketers? Why, the list is endless if you count these UCLA activists’ phone calls as “terrorism”!

imagine that you have a little girl and I called her up and told her that - because you support infanticide - that you might smother her in her sleep if she’s not a good girl.

Would you then consider yourself a pansy, Davey, for acting to protect your family from harrassing goons?

What do you mean “goons”? According to you, your phone calls would make you a Terrorist!

Dave, terrorism is the use of terror to get what you want.

In that case, Alfred Hitchcock was a terrorist. He wanted people to watch his movies. To accomplish this, he terrified his audiences. He used “terror” to get what he wanted. Your definition is, pardon my French, fucking retarded. Snakes on a Plane, man.

Terrorism is the use of VIOLENCE to get what you want.

This professor wants to torture primates

Don’t be absurd.

and be free from any criticism from his actions.

Criticism is fine; intimidation is not.

He’s just a pansy and a hypocrite.

I don’t know if he’s a pansy, but I can’t see why you think he’s a hypocrite.

If he’s not even willing to put up with some annoying phone calls, isn’t it pretty obvious that his “experiments” (read: torture) on these primates wasn’t that important anyway?

Sigh.  I was beginning to think that you were a rational person Dave.  How disappointing.

Dave, quit being an idiot.  There’s a bit of a difference between people who pay a one-time visit to your home to solicit you and a group of people who systematically contact your home and - using your own words - harrass you.

This sort of behavior is terrifying.  I know.  I’ve been through it.

There are many different levels of terrorism.  You don’t have to crash planes into buildings to be a terrorist.  All you have to do is use fear to coerce people into doing what you want.

Not that I’d expect someone who thinks that eating a burger is just like being a Nazi but smothering a child in his/her sleep can be an act of kindness to understand that.

Seriously, the fact that you’re going to be a teacher is downright scary.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

All you have to do is use fear to coerce people into doing what you want.

Seriously, the fact that you’re going to be a teacher is downright scary.

Terrorism is the use of VIOLENCE to get what you want.

Dave, there’s this book called a ‘dictionary’.  If you read it, you don’t have to make up your own definitions for words.

Frmo the OED:
Terrorism

1. Government by intimidation as directed and carried out by the party in power in France during the Revolution of 1789-94; the system of the ‘Terror’ (1793-4): see TERROR n. 4.

2. gen. A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized. Also transf. Cf. TERRORIST 1b.

Dave: “Alfred Hitchcock was a terrorist. He wanted people to watch his movies. To accomplish this, he terrified his audiences.”

One small detail: people chose to see his movies, and even paid to do so.  He didn’t use coercion or intimidation to get people to see his movies; that would have been terrorism.  Once again, your failure to do simple logic rears its ugly head.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism

Or we could just leave it as part 2 of the second definition from the OED.

I know, we’ll have a whole generation of students who believe it’s wrong to increase another’s suffering. Scary indeed.

Dave, you’re found of telling us all that you just want to reduce the overall amount of suffering in the world.  That’s why you tell us it’s ok for parents to kill children they don’t want, since unwanted children are a burden.

Have you stopped to consider that this experimentation on monkeys might reduce the overall suffering in the world?  Advancements in science - from new types of drugs to new treatments for illnesses - tends to do that.

What’s pathetic is that not only are you a batshit crazy extremist, you’re also inconsistent in the principles you use to justify your extremism.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

That’s why you tell us it’s ok for parents to kill children they don’t want, since unwanted children are a burden.

Have you stopped to consider that this experimentation on monkeys might reduce the overall suffering in the world? Advancements in science - from new types of drugs to new treatments for illnesses - tends to do that.

I consider the potential outcomes of animal experimentation quite deeply. I support certain forms of animal experimentation, if the end result is likely to be a decrease in overall suffering. My general rule on animal experimentation is, to borrow a line from Singer, “An animal experiment cannot be justifiable unless the experiment is so important that the use of a brain-damaged human would be justifiable.” If we keep that in mind, we shouldn’t go too far wrong. Thus, testing cosmetics on non-human animals would be wrong--testing on animals to find a cure for AIDS would almost certainly be right.

So what was Ringach’s experiment?

“Mr. Ringach has been approved to kill 30 macaque monkeys for vision experiments. Each monkey is first paralyzed, then used for a single session that lasts up to 120 hours, and finally killed. Ringach says his experiments will advance our understanding of how monkeys process what they see.”

Would we use a brain-damaged human for this? By doing this experiment, are we providing equal consideration for the interests of all beings?

Rob: I must mention that Dave has increased my suffering quite a bit, with his inability to do simple logic and analogy, and with his inaccurate attempts at equivalence.
Your point about animal experimentation is a good one, and here’s another facet of it.  In the wild, animals rarely, if ever, die of old age after living out their declining years in assisted living, on Social Security or a pension.  One hundred percent of animals in the wild die a painful death, either from starvation, sickness, injury or being eaten alive by something.  If animals could contemplate their own existence, they might be driven to avoid that painful death, but they can’t, and they don’t.  They just go about their business until something takes them out.  Except for the loss of freedom, then, captivity of any kind is superior to living in the wild, anthropomorphism notwithstanding.  Even animals used in lab experiments can’t be worse off than their wild relatives who face being eaten by something every day.  Dave’s meme about increasing suffering, then, is revealed to be complete BS.  Which shouldn’t surprise anyone who has read his stuff.  Like all extremist lefties, his real agenda is to increase the suffering of those who don’t buy into his extremist agenda.  He is unable to accept a diversity of opinion, lifestyle, or diet.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Mengele infected Jews with malaria in an attempt to develop immunization for that disease. He (they?) didn’t succeed--but if he had, it could have reduced the amount of suffering in the world. (Even today, malaria kills 3 million a year). Would that have made it right?

No, it wouldn’t have.  But that’s because, using my principles, humans are humans and animals are just dumb animals.

But we’re talking about your principles here, not mine.  You think it’s ok to hurt humans against their will to reduce suffering in the world (such as children).  I don’t.

For you, smothing a Downs syndrome baby in his/her sleep is a moral act...yet experimenting on animals to advnace scientific knowledge is not.

You don’t apply your principles consistently, which makes you worse than an extremist.  It makes you an inconsistent extremist.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Dave: “Mengele infected Jews with malaria in an attempt to develop immunization for that disease. He (they?) didn’t succeed--but if he had, it could have reduced the amount of suffering in the world. (Even today, malaria kills 3 million a year). Would that have made it right?”

As usual, you miss the point: Animals are not equivalent to humans.  As a point of fact, the most effective method of preventing malaria, DDT, has been banned for many years by environmental extremists, resulting in untold numbers of needless deaths. Another example of extremism adding to total suffering.  BTW, humans suffer; animals don’t.  Nice going.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

But that’s because, using my principles, humans are humans and animals are just dumb animals.

Your principles are flawed and speciesist. Humans are animals, btw.

You think it’s ok to hurt humans against their will to reduce suffering in the world (such as children).

For you, smothing a Downs syndrome baby in his/her sleep is a moral act

Almost never--smothering involves a much greater amount of pain than simple euthenasia.

yet experimenting on animals to advnace scientific knowledge is not.

Quoting Singer again:

“(...)(E)xperiments serving no direct and urgent purpose should stop immediately, and in the remaining fields of research, we should, whenever possible, seek to replace experiments that involve animals with alternative methods that do not.”

You don’t apply your principles consistently

You have provided no examples of this; it’s simply a blind (and false) assertion

(I do enjoy reading your strawmen arguments of my positions, btw. Gosh, when you lie about everything I’ve ever said, I become quite a monster!)

Not exactly, as those whom we euthenize to relieve their suffering are not “people” in a meaningful sense of the world, and thus lack a “will” to “go against.” It’s akin to saying that by chopping down a tree we’re going against its will… the tree lacks a consciousness, and thus a “will” to be violated. I don’t think we should euthenize rational adults with broken arms, as they DO have rights and interests we cannot violate.

So...my one-year-old daughter is not a person?

That’s going to come as one heck of a surprise to her.

Almost never--smothering involves a much greater amount of pain than simple euthenasia.

And yet you still maintain that death is better than living with Downs syndrome.

(I do enjoy reading your strawmen arguments of my positions, btw. Gosh, when you lie about everything I’ve ever said, I become quite a monster!)

I’ve not lied about anything you said, and you are a monster.  You support killing children, you support terrorizing scientists who are simply trying to expand knowledge of how the brain works and you make reprehensible comparisons between people who enjoy a simple burger and people who murdered millions upon millions of Jews.

You are a fringist idiot who is marginalized by the inconsistent and totally irrational consequensences of your own opinions.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob: Once again, Dave illustrates his inability to do simple logic.  If he approves killing humans who aren’t conscious enough to understand their fate, then he must approve the killing of animals, because none of them can be demonstrated to understand their fate.  Dave has just refuted his own extremism.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Rob: Not only that, but Dave can’t tell the difference between a fat old English guy who made scary movies and murdering terrorists who strap bombs on children and send them out to kill innocent civilians.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Dave has just refuted his own extremism.

Indeed, but he’ll probably try to rationalize his way out of the hole he dug for himself anyway.  And will probably call us all liars and Nazis along the way too.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob: This is what I find scary about extremists.  Since they have no principles, being driven by someone else’s ideology, they will do anything that they can rationalize.  Dave would probably kill either one or both of us, if he could, if he could rationalize it as reducing suffering; by his own definition, of course.
To my way of thinking, it was insane for Saddam to kill so many of his own people; to him, of course, it made perfect sense.  That is the scary part.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

So...my one-year-old daughter is not a person?

That’s going to come as one heck of a surprise to her.

And yet you still maintain that death is better than living with Downs syndrome.

You support killing children

if it relieves suffering. You oppose it--you would rather increase another’s suffering.

you support terrorizing scientists who are simply trying to expand knowledge of how the brain works

Where the hell did you pull this out of? You’re losing it, man…

you make reprehensible comparisons between people who enjoy a simple burger and people who murdered millions upon millions of Jews.

You are a fringist idiot who is marginalized by the inconsistent and totally irrational consequensences of your own opinions.

Assertion, assertion, assertion. How about, just to surprise us, you throw in some evidence?

I highly doubt that.

Why?  My daughter isn’t one any more, but she was cognizant.  She knew her own name.  She knew when she was hungry.  She could communicate with me using basic words and gestures.

The fact that you don’t even comprehend the fact that a one year old child is a person is...scary.

If their parents could replace her with a child who did not have Downs syndrome, the end result would be a decrease in suffering. If the parents enjoy having children with Downs syndrome, more power to them.

The result would be the murder of a child with a relatively mild mental disorder.  I don’t see how that decreases suffering.

if it relieves suffering. You oppose it--you would rather increase another’s suffering.

You have a funny way of reducing suffering by encouraging murder.

Where the hell did you pull this out of? You’re losing it, man…

You support this extremist animal rights group harrassing this scientist’s family until he quit his research into how brains work.  I’m not losing anything.  Be responsible for what you say.

Are you denying that omnivores and Nazis both intentionally increase the suffering of a minority group? That omnivores and Nazis both fail to provide equal consideration for the interests of others?

Jews are not equivalent to cows.

Assertion, assertion, assertion. How about, just to surprise us, you throw in some evidence?

I backup everything I say.  It’s not surprising that someone as crazed as you are doesn’t realize that you are, in fact, crazy.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

If he approves killing humans who aren’t conscious enough to understand their fate

Only if it reduces their suffering.

then he must approve the killing of animals, because none of them can be demonstrated to understand their fate.

Only if it reduces their suffering.

Dave has just refuted his own extremism.

Rrrrrright.

To my way of thinking, it was insane for Saddam to kill so many of his own people; to him, of course, it made perfect sense.

Where the fuck are you getting this shit?

You have a funny way of reducing suffering by encouraging murder.

I wonder if all the righteous animal defenders would be willing to sign a note stating that they won’t ever use any pharmaceutical-medical product that was developed through research using animals. Yeah, let’s do that, let’s create a bunch of companies that will test and develop ANYTHING with any potential future use in medicine through testing humans directly!! And we have to be strict and serious about this: anything with any potential future use includes pretty much all of biological research today as the line between basic and applied research moves a lot with time…

OK. Animals are animals.  Those used in research where raised for their role like a bull or a cow is raised for food.  However, It’s not OK to torture them.  Quality of life does matter.  We don’t slaughter cattle by loping off one limb at a time to see how long it takes for them to die.  There must be standards! It must be policed.

mdell

"Where the fuck are you getting this shit?”

From you, Dave.  You favor killing humans who can’t be self-aware, but you describe animals who are not self-aware as “suffering”.  Your position is self-contradictory.  If animals who are not self-aware(all of them) can “suffer”, then humans who are not self-aware(a very small number) can also suffer, and therefore, killing them would be wrong.  Vegetables are also not self-aware, but according to you, they cannot “suffer”, which rationalizes your extreme diet. 
The reality is, only humans are capable of suffering, because they have the capacity of self-awareness(they can contemplate their own existence).  Animals can’t.  In any case, your “suffering” argument doesn’t hold water.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Anybody who has owned a dog knows they are capable of suffering. They wear their heart on their sleeve. They truly fit there evolutionary role as “mans best friend”- thats our fault, selective breeding, etc. 

mike

Dogs that have been put in shealters while their owners are away on vacation can emotionaly withdrawl and not eat like they should.

mike

mdell: What you are doing is called anthropomorphism.  You are interpreting your dog’s behavior as if it were human behavior.  Unless you can read your dog’s mind, you have no idea of what is going on in there.  Besides, we don’t eat dogs in this country.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

The dog thing was just to point out that they can suffer. I know we don’t eat them.

“your dog’s mind”

You have just admitted that they have a mind!

Have you raised a puppy through all the stages of development.  Played with it.  Taught it.  Got to know it’s personality?

Or maybe it was a goldfish that had all this personality. Or maybe not.

Why do dogs have different personalities?

mike

I once had a girl friend that, to my surprise, thought that animals did not have soul. And because of this’ it did not matter what happened to them.  It was OK for them to starve and have a 50% mortality rate in one year.  Of course the caves would die first, but as long as some of the animals were alive at the end, the owner would still make money.

This didn’t bother her.

mdell: My actual statement: “Unless you can read your dog’s mind, you have no idea of what is going on in there.”

You might find there is no mind to read.  Your conclusion was in error.

Feeling pain is a matter of nerve endings.  Suffering, on the other hand, is subjective, and is a matter of consciousness.  We know humans suffer because they can talk about it and write about it.  Different humans experience different degrees or amounts of suffering from the same experience, so it isn’t a fixed phenomenon, but is dependent on the consciousness of the particular human.  With animals, pain is somewhat speculative, but suffering is entirely speculative.  Once again, anthropomorphism.
Dogs make their living by attaching themselves to a human.  They are very good at it.  The dogs that weren’t didn’t live to pass on their genes, or at least not as many as the successful dogs.  It’s called natural selection.  I have no doubt that some animals have some consciousness, but how much is purely speculative.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Have you raised a puppy through all the stages of development. Played with it. Taught it. Got to know it’s personality?

Doesn’t really matter. The presence of a central nervous system confirms they feel pain (to say nothing of its psychological reactions).

Dave: Thus the clear distinction between pain(a physiological reality), and suffering(a psychological state, dependent on the ability to contemplate one’s own existence). Many lower animals lack a central nervous system, but respond to stimuli, as do most plants(phototropism, for instance).  If your judgement of “suffering” is based on physical response to stimuli, it goes right down to single-celled organisms, I’m afraid.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

From Wikipedia
The neocortex (Latin for “new bark” or “new rind") is a part of the brain of mammals. It is the top layer of the cerebral hemispheres, 2-4 mm thick, and is involved in higher functions such as sensory perception, generation of motor commands, spatial reasoning, conscious thought, and in humans, language.

mdell: Again, it doesn’t really matter, since “suffering” quite obviously encapsulates “pain.” You can suffer without feeling pain, but the reverse is not true. I don’t care if my dog can read Shakespeare: as long as it can suffer (through the infliction of pain or otherwise), we must provide equal consideration of its interests.

Dave
I was trying to make the point that mammals can suffer.  Someone else on this thread is very reluctant to draw any parallels with humans and dogs.  In my house they are sometimes referred as “dog persons”.

mdell: Unless you have direct verbal communication with your dogs, your projection of their “personhood” is simply anthropomorphism.  Walt Disney made millions from it, so it’s quit common.  That doesn’t mean that there is any evidence that any nonhuman animal can contemplate its own existence, which is the requirement for “suffering”.
Dogs make their living by imprinting on humans, so the resemblance to human behavior is understandable.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

That should have been: “...it’s quite common...”

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Only mammals have a neocortex.  Its the most advanced part of brain.  In evolutionary terms it came last.  So all mammals have the same basic brain structure as we do.  We just have more neurons. Our brain devolvement is stretched out over about 16 years instead of about one year as for dogs.  Dogs can communicate vocally and through body language.  Their messages are simple.  Remember wolfs can hunt and work together in packs and have a relatively advanced social structure.

mdell: “So all mammals have the same basic brain structure as we do. We just have more neurons.”

Any science on that?  I think you will find that statement of yours is fundamentally untrue.  There are large differences in the type of neurons between species of nonhuman animals, in addition to there being profound differences between humans and other animals.  The vaunted “big brain” of the dolphin is mostly taken up with sound processing.  Human and nonhuman mammal brains are not equivalent.  Lack of sophisticated language and technology should be a hint that there are profound differences between humans and other animals.  Our progress is totally based on our ability to contemplate our own existence(self-reflection), the prerequisite for “suffering”.  Nice try, though.  I know you would like to believe this from an emotional point of view, but that dog just won’t hunt(pun intended).
Cooperative hunting behavior is a sign of evolutionary success, not advanced consciousness.  The wolves who were able to hunt cooperatively produced more young, and were therefore able to dominate their ecological niche.  Most large mammals are solitary hunters, btw.  Explain that fact.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

I didn’t say they were equivalent.  I’m saying they have the same basic design that sets mammals apart from lower life forms.  I consider self-awareness and the ability to suffer to be much more basic then the ability to develop technology.  Short of you being changed into mammal for a day, I don’t think anyone can change your mind.  Is this about only humans having souls?

mdell: That isn’t my argument.  As I have said multiple times, suffering is a construct of consciousness, requiring the capacity to contemplate one’s existence.  There is no proof that any nonhuman animal has that capacity, and you furnish no such evidence.  Basic structure doesn’t prove anything.  Why are the dolphins, if they are so smart, unable to figure out that they should swim away from the tuna when the fishing boats come?  They are a bundle of reflexes, just like all other nonhuman animals, incapable of discursive thought and self-reflection.  It is precisely this ability to self-reflect that has catapulted us from a run of the mill mammal to the dominant species on the planet.  Some even claim we have the power to change the climate of the Earth.  Wow!

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Only mammals have a neocortex. Its the most advanced part of brain. In evolutionary terms it came last.

Mdell, once again, none of this matters. We don’t factor in intelligence when determining which beings we should consider in making ethical choices, we factor in tbe ability to experience suffering. When you kick a dog, you inflict pain, and cause it to suffer. It doesn’t matter if the dog has a neocortex or not; what matters is that it can feel pain.

Dave: I know this is hard for you to understand, but pain only requires nerve endings, while suffering requires the ability to contemplate ones existence.  You favor killing children because they lack the ability to contemplate their own existence, but you change your position when it comes to nonhuman animals.  Why is that?

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

To Dave
If it has a neocortex then it is likely to experience pain similar to the way humans do. If it is for example an Ant, I doubt there is much experiencing going on there.  If its something in between like a fish, I don’t know.  If there are some biologists out there reading this, may be they could try to clear things up.

mdell: I say again; the existence of a neocortex of some kind does not presuppose the ability to reflect on one’s existence, just like it doesn’t presuppose the ability to drive a car or play poker.  Don’t be misled by those paintings showing dogs playing cards.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

To Robert108

I know how you feel.  I consider the ability to experience pain and suffering to be considerably below the ability to “reflect on one’s existence” on the evolutionary scale.  We are going to have to agree to disagree.

mdell: This isn’t about my feelings.  Words have meanings, and “suffering” has a certain meaning, and it’s not the same as the simple experience of pain.  We can suffer without having experienced any physical pain at all, and if you’re unconscious, you can’t experience pain or suffering, even though you may be having surgery.  It’s not so simple as you assert, that having a certain brain structure indicates the ability to suffer.  If you have any proof that animals suffer(not just experience pain), get back to me.  They are clearly not the same thing.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Robert108

I have talked to people who run shelters.
Its not uncommon for a dog to be placed there, for one or two weeks for their owners to go on vacation, to emotionally withdrawal, not bark, not pace, not eat like they should, and not to react much to the people trying to comfort them (if they have time). Since I have a house, I am now