It’s your assumption to prove, not mine. If you want evidence that the assumption needs proving, see: BBC article
Here are the only alternatives they give:
Wholly inadequate. Testing on cell cultures tells us nothing about overall effects on the animal.
All they are saying here is “use fewer animals”.
And all this says is “make the animals that are used suffer less”.
In case you missed the college class on logic, it is not up to someone to prove that something doesn’t exist. If you think there is a good alternative to animal testing, then it is incumbent on you to show that one does exist.
According to your own citation, there isn’t any good alternative. If you have one, let’s hear it.
Thanks, but no thanks. While I find P&T’s magic to be immensely entertaining, every bit of nonfiction I’ve heard them espouse has been sophomoric, simplistic, and ugly. I’ve got no desire to pay money on the off-chance that their show provides the only evidence of PETA’s ills. If you can’t make the case without asking me to pay money for a couple of comedic magicians to argue it for you, then I suggest you’ve got a weak case.
I think there’s a disconnect here. I provided you an example where PETA cared about the treatments of ticks. Can you give more than a one-word answer explaining how this example supports the idea that they only support cute animals?
I’ll stipulate that you’re right, although a cite would be nice. Even if you are, it’s irrelevant. PETA’s never (to the best of my knowledge) claimed that according to legal definitions, they are nonviolent; they’ve only claimed that they’re nonviolent. Absent any disqualifiers, this claim should be evaluated within the context of their own usage of the word violence, especially if we’re trying to evaluate the consistency of their philosophy.
According to their definition, killing an animal in a slaughterhouse is violent; according to the law’s definition, this is not a violent act. According to their definition, burning a building down may be nonviolent; according to the law’s, it may not be. So what? We’re looking at their consistency, not at their adherence to legal definitions in their documents.
For what it’s worth, I think the progress of science would be significantly slowed if animal experimentation came to a halt. I came to this conclusion after working at UNC Memorial hospitals and talking with and listening to lectures by scientists who experiment on animals. PETA’s claims in this regard are, I think, disingenuous.
This doesn’t mean that all experiments are necessary; I certainly think there’s room to reduce experimentation (for example, I would love to see an immediate ban on the testing of cosmetics and household chemicals on animals). This doesn’t mean that animals in all experiments are treated well; I’d love to see stricter oversight of animal experimenters. And it doesn’t even mean that the case for ending animal experimentation is fatally flawed: on the contrary, if you conclude that animal rights are valid, then experimenting on nonconsenting animals is every bit as unethical as experimenting on nonconsenting humans.
However, I don’t accept that animal rights is a correct philosophy, so I allow for limited testing. And I don’t think that those arguing against all animal experimentation serve themselves well by making the disingenuous argument that science could proceed normally without such testing.
Daniel
No, you don’t have to challenge Charles Manson’s theory of the world to condemn him. Same with arsonists.
How about if it is board members and PETA is funding arsonists?
That’s right. It just denies others the same chance to live that she has.
Well, whatever they may believe in general doesn’t change the fact that insulin got here through animal testing. And, if they think there are valid alternatives, it is up to them to demonstrate them. In fact, they would be way ahead if they were able to. Of course, that would require convincing the scientific community and they aren’t even close to doing that.
Didn’t Hitler say pretty much the same thing about the Jews?
Yeah, let’s just leave it in the “in dispute” category until you have a chance to see the show.
Bullshit. Does that mean I am entitled to burn down your house if I think you are a threat to my dog?
The moral system embodied in US law would not agree with you for even a second. So that’s bullshit, too, especially if you ought to know that your actions are as dangerous as arson is.
No, if you think that then you definitely don’t understand the origins of the law.
My daughter is a believer in animal rights and was a dues-paying member of PETA until she actually started seeing some of the stuff they put out. So your assumption there is wrong, too.
:eek:
Are you completely unfamiliar with Godwin’s Law? This is an outrageous comparison, and I urge you either:
- to reject it and apologize; or
- to accept that you’re like Hitler, inasmuch as, like Hitler said about the Jews, you’re saying it’s okay to kill cows because they’re inferior to humans.
Obviously I’d prefer #1, and Godwin’s Law is infamous for sending debates into spiraling downward stupidity; but it’s your choice.
Daniel
Pardon, but what are your scientific credentials that you can dismiss cell cultures when medical researchers find it acceptable?
As for them only reducing the number of animals used, you clearly didn’t even read the article. Had you read it, you would have found this:
And this:
This:
This:
Further, this article doesn’t even discuss moving some of the risks from animals to human volunteers. It may be the case that these alternatives cannot completely replace animal testing, but that is likely because animal testing isn’t viewed as something that needs replacing – a view PETA is trying to change.
This is ironic, given your misunderstanding of burdens and claims. First of all, if you’re claiming that something generally recognized to exist doesn’t exist, it is your burden to provide evidence of that claim. If I claim that there is no such country as Australia, you would be right to ask me to back that up with evidence.
More importantly, you make the original claim: animal testing is necessary, therefore Ms. Newkirk is a hypocrite. You don’t back it up. When I ask you to support it, you say that I must prove there is no alternative. No, you must support your unwarranted assumption. And even though it’s not my burden to disprove your assumption, I have done so.
I respectfully submit that you’re missing the point entirely. I’m not saying ALF is entitled to commit arson. I’m saying that they are wrong to do so because they are wrong about animal rights. If they were right about animal rights, they would be entitled to do what they do. Hence, the point hinges on acceptance or rejection of animal rights.
I agree. But in PETA’s defense, I think that it is reasonable to believe that medical research would still continue and that many lives would still be saved because of it. And further that if animal testing were banned, alternative techniques would become much more successful.
I’m only defending the point insofar as it shows how Ingrid Newkirk is not a hypocrite.
Yeah. I have never seen anything from them campaigning for kindness to grasshoppers.
Felony murder definition =- http://www.legal-dictionary.org/legal-dictionary-f/Felony-Murder.asp
http://fsweb.wm.edu/skills/Documents/Criminal%20Law/Ward/ward%20review%20handout%203.doc – b. Basic Doctrine Case law
i. Regina v. Serne—The ∆s set fire to a house after insuring all the possessions inside and the life of his young son. Both of the ∆’s sons died in the fire.
- RULE—Any act known to be dangerous to life and likely in itself to case a death, done for the purpose of committing a felony, which in fact causes death, should be murder.
So as long as I do an extended semantical dance, I can do anything I want and still be consistent.
Pardon me if I say that sounds like an argument out of Alice in Wonderland – or the average psycopath. Charles Manson would agree with that line of reasoning, I am pretty sure.
I respectfully submit that you are missing the point. No one is entitled to commit arson, morally or legally, no matter what they may believe, and no matter how correct those beliefs may be.
Okay, but you have seen something from them campaigning for kindness to ticks, right? On topic, man, on topic!
]quote]Felony murder definition =- http://www.legal-dictionary.org/legal-dictionary-f/Felony-Murder.asp
http://fsweb.wm.edu/skills/Documents/Criminal%20Law/Ward/ward%20review%20handout%203.doc – b. Basic Doctrine Case law
i. Regina v. Serne—The ∆s set fire to a house after insuring all the possessions inside and the life of his young son. Both of the ∆’s sons died in the fire.
- RULE—Any act known to be dangerous to life and likely in itself to case a death, done for the purpose of committing a felony, which in fact causes death, should be murder.
[/quote]
Right, but we’re discussing acts here which:
- Are deliberately planned so as to minimize risk to human life; and
- Have never killed a human.
So your cites above, which deal instead with acts which do kill humans, are completely irrelevant. I no longer stipulate that your legal definition is correct: according to the evidence you’ve now offered, ALF’s arsons are nonviolent.
Care to try again? You need to provide cites showing that acts which do not result in harm to human life are considered by law to be violent acts. (FWIW, I suspect you can find such cites; it’s just the ones you’ve given so far are piss-poor).
Yeah? Well, Pol Pot would agree with your argument, so your view is much worse.
Frankly, that’s just so much offensive bullshit, and is nothing remotely resembling an argument: it’s just an insult, which belongs in the Pit, not in Great Debates. If you can’t do better than that, you ought to concede the thread and go somewhere where handwaving away arguments and telling your opponents that Charles Manson would appreciate them isn’t just so much contemptible nonsense.
Daniel
OK! Now there’s an actual argument that we can have.
So, I assume you categorically reject the use of cruise missiles to destroy WMD production sites and terrorist camps? I would be morally wrong to burn down a plantation owner’s house if it meant freeing all of his slaves? You believe that the French Resistance should have just sat on their hands and acted within the law?
If animals are equal to humans, I would say that there has never been a system more evil than the present one. This system would be so evil that it would almost be immoral not to commit arson to try and stop the system.
(hence, you and others need to address the theory of animal rights instead of circling around it with these sorts of claims).
Are you serious? If I am in a country with a dictator whose secret police keep records of political dissidents and use these records to spirit the dissidents away for torture and murder, you are saying I’m not entitled to wait until the secret police leave their office and then set fire to their records?
I suspect you need to refine your point.
Daniel
Lots of differences there. That is not an individual acting alone, for one, and it is presumed that there is some reasonable direct threat that is being countered.
Yep. Where did you get the idea that you had the one best solution to the problem by burning down his house, anyway? How about a minimum wage law instead?
Assuming there was any possible effective remedial path within the law, then yes.
No, all I need to do is figure out that no individual is entitled to burn down anything that isn’t his own – absent extreme circumstances that aren’t evident here.
Well, we can postulate all sorts of extreme circumstances. Maybe aliens will land and start putting up too many billboards, that we will have to burn down.
But does that have any relevance to the current issue? You don’t seriously contend that burning down anything is any kind of rational approach to protecting animals, do you? (except, of course, if your mental health is in a place where Charles Manson would feel comfortable.)
Well, duh. Hence the extreme circumstances evident in all of our examples. Obviously if PETA is right about animal rights, the circumstances are extreme enough to warrant arson.
Can you think of a system more worthy of extreme opposition than one which condones the systematic torture and eventual consumption of millions of humans per year?
No, that isn’t true. Who decided that arson was even a reasonable approach, let alone “warranted”?
On any given issue we could a) burn something down b) educate the public, c) pass some new law, etc., etc., etc. There are numerous possible solutions to the problem – assuming you agree there is a problem.
Even if they were right about animal rights, they would still have to show that arson is a reasonable option given the alternatives. And the burden of proof would be on them.
It is my impression that nut cases like this have no real interest in finding any reasonable alternatives.
Well, maybe not. Can you provide any evidence that individual arson is the most reasonable approach to ending that problem, if that was true?
Zhao,
Similar ethical situations to what you have postulated have already been well-argued and handled by law. There are always extraordinary circumstances in which the law will allow you to do something that would otherwise be illegal. You could possibly postulate a situation for everything where committing a crime might be found to be acceptable under the law.
However, if you want to argue that some otherwise illegal actions are justifiable then you have to prove it. The burden of proof is on the guy who committed the crime. In order to show that it is justifiable, you have to show that it was in response to an emergency and that the actions were appropriate and not unreasonable to the emergency.
Whatever you believe, that is going to be a tough proposition to prove.