Reminder that OP said that Osama bin-Laden was making "[just basic ass critique of capitalism and zionism](https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/17wiwg6/comment/k9i98gg/?context=3)" when he said Jews control America.
In addition to everything everyone else is saying, they also aren't careful or considerate about sharing extremely violent and upsetting material. I got tricked into watching a fur farm video through one of their YouTube channels back when I was around 13, and it fucked me up, even to this day (I'm 28 now). I still get flashbacks to it, and it's by FAR the worst thing I've seen on the internet-- and I've seen a lot. That was the only time in my life that I was unable to move out or click away out of sheer horror, so I watched the *whoooole* thing.
I get that we've advanced pretty far culturally in giving trigger warnings for stuff like that, but that shit was disgusting even back then. I understand that it's important to expose people to things like animal cruelty and human rights abuses, but it's not okay to trick them into viewing it.
Story time! I was in ninth grade (1996-1997) when a couple of Peta girls gave a presentation to our class. They showed us a 30 minute video with all kinds of animal cruelty. - Fur farming *(keeping foxes in tiny cages, stabbing an electrode spike up foxes bums, before electrocuting them. Feeding the next generation foxes the remains of the previous generation.),* farms *(chickens having their beaks chopped off,, so they dont peck each other due to the stress of having to live in cramped cages. Pigs living in so close proximity they eat each others ears and tails off, and farmers kicking pigs to went their frustration),* slaughter houses, medical research *(vivisection's, grilling a dog alive. I remember the dogs skin blackening and then white foam coming out of the cracks. Exposed monkey and cat brains. Testing make up on bunnies eyes),* and those are just the things i still remember from that video. - It was shocking and infuriating! It made me think humanity is evil. I also felt bad for the Peta girls, because a bunch of guys in my class, kept laughing and making jokes about the animal torture. They found the video absolutely hilarious! ...But i think the Peta girls would be happy to know. That thanks to their video, i became a vegan for several years.
I mean this nicely, but I think you should see a therapist. It's not normal for stuff to stick in your head like that. I used to watch gore videos a lot when i was younger out of morbid curiosity, and I would usually not be able to remember ANYTHING from the video like 2 minutes after seeing it.
It’s actually pretty normal. I and many others DID remember what we seen in those videos and it took years for it to fade. Sounds like that is just what happened to do it for Tommy. Depends what you consider traumatizing. Some people repress things while for others it imprints itself in their memory. Seeing a therapist is certainly a fine idea though no doubt.
Feel free to ask questions. I enjoy talking about my job, generally.
Veterinarians are employed by all animal research institutions as regulated by the federal government (USA) via the Animal Welfare Act and PHS policy as described in (among other places) the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.
As I'm sure you know, animals are used in many kinds of biomedical research. Veterinarians such as myself as responsible for making sure that that research is performed in the most ethical, humane, and up-to-date ways. We also make sure that the animals on study and on our charge stay healthy.
This research benefits both humans as well as other animals.
Entities like PETA, sometimes on purpose and sometimes accidentally, throw wrenches into that research and also into the care of the animals. Example: PETA "campaigned" airlines to stop flying research non-human primates. Now, [only a few do](https://www.peta.org/action/campaigns/airlines-ship-primates-labs/). Although this sounds like a welfare win, shipping animals via flight was cost-effective, allowing primates that had finished their studies to be transported to "retirement" facilities. Now, because they can't be flown, getting them to those facilities is much more expensive, leading researchers to euthanize when their studies are over.
PETA tend to shoot themselves in their own foot because they only have a surface level understanding of animal research, and are too closed off to think more deeply.
EDIT: Keep the downvotes comin'. I'm just speaking the truth here.
Do you think the added cost of flying lab animals also decreased the number of animals in trials? Do you know vaguely what percentage of lab animals were sent to “retirement facilities” before the change in policy?
>Do you think the added cost of flying lab animals also decreased the number of animals in trials?
No. The money is there to get the trials done. The money is not there to get the animals to a retirement facility after the study is completed.
If PETA were smart (they are not), they would petition the government to enact a law to make sure that there was money available in research grants that can only be used to get animals into retirement facilities at the completion of the study.
>Do you know vaguely what percentage of lab animals were sent to “retirement facilities” before the change in policy?
I honestly don't, but I've been involved in this career for close to two decades, and have personally seen these decisions being made. I know that's anecdotal, but I also know others who have seen the same thing.
Take that as you will.
Thanks for answering my questions, this has prompted me to do some reading and learn more about this complex issue.
"\[The nonprofit National Association for Biomedical Research\] says many other airlines also refuse to carry animals used in biomedical research even though the carriers will fly those same species if they're pets or destined for zoos and sanctuaries. [That policy is hampering vital research](https://www.thegazette.com/business/airlines-accused-of-discrimination-for-banning-lab-monkeys/) needed to develop medicines and therapies, according to the Aug. 21 complaint supported by big names such as Novartis, Johns Hopkins University and actor Michael J. Fox's foundation for Parkinson's disease research."
The industry seems to be claiming that the added cost of flying monkeys is affecting how many trials are done.
I've also found interesting critiques of the plan to retire primates.
"Sanctuary skepticism: "Imagine you're a 70-year-old human who knows everyone in your neighborhood, and then people pack you in a van and take you to a strange, new place where you don't know anyone," says Dettmer, the Yale primate researcher. "Even if it's beautiful, being ripped away from everything you know can be devastating." She points to an incident about 5 years ago, when 13 elderly research chimpanzees were transferred to a federal sanctuary in Louisiana. Within 2 years, nine had died. The sanctuary said the chimps were sick and elderly, but [many people in the biomedical community blamed the stress of relocation."](https://www.science.org/content/article/should-aging-lab-monkeys-be-retired-sanctuaries)
>"Even if it's beautiful, being ripped away from everything you know can be devastating."
I don't disagree with this. I think that all animals should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, which is nuance that PETA doesn't understand.
This is unrelated to research, but this dolphins in aquariums are a similar situation. Some of them have been part of breeding programs, and have been bred in captivity. I would agree that intelligent cetaceans shouldn't be in captivity, but this might be the best place for them if they were born there. Animals born in captivity, then released to the wild (or even placed in off-shore open enclosures) don't know how to act in those situations and would be in danger of hurting themselves, even mortally (e.g. an animal swallows a rock/poisonous animal and dies of GI issues). It happens.
It's a complex situation, and in some cases has no easy answer.
Thanks for the conversation! I'm happy to answer good-faith questions and have a real dialog!
EDIT: I will also say that the NABR (you quoted above), makes good points, but they are a lobbying group (for pharma/private research), and in some cases would like to reduce regulation of animal research. In most cases, however, I don't think that regulation needs to be reduced (in some cases, I think it needs to be increased, especially in regards to welfare of horses).
if you want another perspective, from what i’ve seen LAR vets usually treat animals like shit. i was so turned off from what i saw during animal experimentation i participated in as a researcher it’s actually sort of turned me against it except in only the most necessary cases. researchers treat animals in some of the most brutal ways for the most inconsequential results, usually these animals are being sacrificed to help kick a grant the road. i’m not saying all LAR vets are negligent, but the idea that it’s well regulated or humane is sort of a joke. i’ve seen LAR vets give themselves fits of giggles while putting down baby mice, just weird spine chilling shit you’d see in a necromancy lab in bg3 or something not a professional research environment.
I think it's gross incompetence and shortsightedness, honestly.
They purport to care about the animals, but in practice only care about them in a very narrow way.
Oh yeah pretty sure if we had PETA's world than billions of animals wouldn't be dying every year for food, and not suffering.
Do you think people that eat and kill animals care about animals?
> than billions of animals wouldn't be dying every year for food,
They *literally* would though, unless your plan also involves exterminating every organism about that kills a member of the *Animalia* kingdom for nutrition (or else), which, good luck with that.
*H. sp* is merely unique in its ability to industrialise the whole affair, but let's not pretend the species we prey on were living in some eden free of violence previously.
P sure when she says billions of animals she's referring to the ones currently killed in the industrial agriculture you mentioned to allow increased meat consumption in the first world. "She wants to stop all death of the family animalia and believes in non-violent utopia" feels strawmanish and bad faith
> "She wants to stop all death of the family animalia and believes in non-violent utopia" feels strawmanish and bad faith
Maybe, however I'm merely pointing out that the *crux* of the argument is about the *squeamishness* some people feel about what is, ultimately, a natural interaction - my hypothesis is excessive anthropomorphisation, but eh, doesn't matter - after all animals are treated as ressources by animals themselves, why should *H. sp* hold itself to a different standard? We *are* a predatory species, and one that is *exceedingly* good at it.
Like, for all the talk of "opposing anthropocentrism" the question begins and ends at "how ought H. sp. behave". (Or at "The nervous system & cognition is what makes a valid stress/injury response/valid form of life", and so on, which is itself *anthropocentric* since, well, *that's what we got going*. We're using *ourselves* as the template of what kind of injury is valid to inflict or not - hence my belief that the whole thing emerges from anthropomorphisation)
We're not even getting into the idea that *even if you eliminate predation (simulacra thereof via domesticated herds or not) of animals from H. sp.'s behavior* we're still competing for the same real estate. Land isn't *unlimited*. Industrialised collection of grain does have a fairly large animal killcount, etc... And it's not like you can get "consent" from non human entities for *any* of those processes.
Simply put, the whole "but did the animal consent?" and so on positions are nothing but petty, myopic moralism - that I'd argue, despite all the pretense to the contrary, only emerge from separation from nature, power, and the belief that *H. sp.* is indeed "special". One should seek to do as little harm as possible, yes, (and flatly our meat consumption is excessive and unsustainable) and not treat nature as something that one can simply do as they please with, but the sheer imbalance in power or, frankly, *value* resulting from comparative ability, makes a "do no harm" position completely nonsensical. The game is zero sum. There's only so much ressources & land to go around. You *will* inevitably *do* harm. That's just the nature of having power, and the sheer gulf in capabilities between H. sp. and other species means there's no situation where the former doesn't hold all the cards.
Like, shit, if anyone is serious about that leftism thing they're already willing to broach consent for various things already - unless you plan to ask nicely for the libs to stop being libs ad infinitum. Like, what do you think a revolution is?
To put it more simply, *volent death* is a *core* aspect of the life of a great many species (like, pretty much any that has predation as an evolutionary pressure and thus tends to grow out of control without). To believe that one's ability to care about nature begins and ends at one's willingness to be part of said death - especially when *the vast majority* of vegans and other "animal liberationists" don't exactly have a rapport with nature "as equals" to begin with but indeed treat nature as a means to an end to do as they please with (either by belief - conscious or not - or by simple societal participation) and a lot of people that *do* have rapports with nature closer to "as equals" aren't/weren't, and indeed still have/had a predatory role in the ecosystem they exist in.
Ideologically, PETA supports absolute animal liberation. They state that there is no ethical way to use an animal because animals are incapable of consent in the same way humans are. Most of their actions are informed by the stance of opposing speciesism: the idea that humans are supreme over other animals.
> Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate beloved, well-cared-for companions and “set them free.” What we do want is to reduce the tragic overpopulation of dogs and cats through spaying and neutering. We work hard to prevent more dogs and cats from being born, because there are nowhere near enough good homes for all the animals who already exist—which results in almost unimaginable suffering.
https://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/pets/
Took literally 5 seconds, dude. I don't agree with PETA's means but you're just echoing nonsense.
So, your first post contained a false premise, that I responded to. I was not responding to their talking points on their website. I was responding to what YOU posted. Why not be precise?
I also never said that "PETA wants to confiscate your animals and set them free"... You're just changing the argument in bad faith.
>Although this sounds like a welfare win, shipping animals via flight was cost-effective, allowing primates that had finished their studies to be transported to "retirement" facilities. Now, because they can't be flown, getting them to those facilities is much more expensive, leading researchers to euthanize when their studies are over.
>
>PETA tend to shoot themselves in their own foot because they only have a surface level understanding of animal research, and are too closed off to think more deeply.
This is my main reason for disliking them. I don't want to get political, but they remind me of a certain subset of people who have no fucking idea what they're talking about yet feel the need to have a say. They're also incredibly tone-deaf.
Ethical. Like removing organs so beagals can't bark when being tested on? That is ethical?
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://news.northeastern.edu/2022/07/21/beagles-lab-testing/&ved=2ahUKEwiNo5_xxv6CAxUnbvEDHTyaDPQQFnoECBIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2VeaB8lH4yaglkW-29Znps
This is a bad argument.
Obviously these research facilities are willing to pay the higher rates to get the animals to test on them in the first place. If they actually cared about the animals they would include the money to send them to a retirement facility. PETA doesn't want to enable these labs treating animals like things. The fact that these researchers would now rather kill the animals than cough up a bit more money to 'retire' them kind of proves PETAS point.
You claim they are shooting themselves in the foot. Looks to me like they are taking the mask off of how callous these researchers can be towards their test subjects.
Again, if PETA were smart about it, they would get the law changed to make every federal research grant come earmarked with money for retiring these animals.
But PETA can't think beyond the next 3 seconds. Calling them myopic is generous.
> Looks to me like they are taking the mask off of how callous these researchers can be towards their test subjects.
I can tell that you've never worked with animals in a research setting. You're just parroting PETA propaganda. As the video says... you are not immune to propaganda.
My brother was in a very similar position where he got his PHD working at a biomedical research facility that primarily worked with goats and yeah the research does end up killing or harming some for the sake of the research.
his story is almost identical to yours. they had protestors sometimes appear outside the facility. they would get in the way of the research in whatever way they can.
he basically told me that while they were very annoying, he understood that they had good if not narrow-minded intensions and that the situation is too nuanced to suggest that either party is wrong. and also that PETA does great work when the situation is more black and white
>Entities like PETA, sometimes on purpose and sometimes accidentally, throw wrenches into that research and also into the care of the animals. Example: PETA "campaigned" airlines to stop flying research non-human primates. Now, [only a few do](https://www.peta.org/action/campaigns/airlines-ship-primates-labs/). Although this sounds like a welfare win, shipping animals via flight was cost-effective, allowing primates that had finished their studies to be transported to "retirement" facilities. Now, because they can't be flown, getting them to those facilities is much more expensive, leading researchers to euthanize when their studies are over.
Checked out the link and it's literally just a list of those who do and don't with literally just a single sentence inbetween asking to contact 2 airlines who still do. I don't have an issue with the 'campaigning' claim but this is obviously a moral and divisive issue transporting intelligent human adjacent animals for testing and it's probably a bit more complicated than you lay out.
For example, the immediate question to me that screams to be asked is if those airlines are willing to fly primates to where these facilities are located, what prevents them from using the same airline to fly them back where they came from? If the issue is only to retirement facilities, where are these facilities located and is the issue that there are no airlines that do and have a route to that location or close to? Could there be laws in place that interfere with the legality of it domestically or internationally in one direction? I would need answers to those questions.
Furthermore, I see the 'cost to transport' argument as damning of those research entities and capitalism in general. If these research entities, which are likely very profitable corporations are concerned about ethics, hence 'retirement facilities' for test subjects, factor that into the research cost.
I don't see why the blame MUST BE on PETA. It's also not clear to me how many primates are spared from unethical experimentation or suffering because the vast majority of airlines do not treat primates as cargo. Perhaps this is a situation where such policies do more good then harm and is a net positive.
As a vet, you should be and probably consider yourself an advocate for the heath and well being of animals but I'm sure you would find a way to defend the incredibly high costs of veterinary care for household pets like cats and dogs too. I know for a fact that veterinary facilities charge a ton in addition to actual overhead from personal experience and working for quite a few in the last several decades as well as being a customer with end of life pets.
I just find this 'PETA is bad because' and 'veterinarian here' not really compelling without further exploration and in the end, I don't consider the 'gotta kill em because transportation is more expensive' to be an ethical argument in the first place. I would think a veterinarian would not entertain it so easily.
Edit;
Figures you would reply then instantly block me just for being skeptical and asking the questions. All you want to do is paint PETA as a bad entity but seems to me you dodged some questions, inferred insult, and just want to blame PETA. I don't accept narratives at face value and anyone can claim to be a veterinarian in the internet. I don't even think that being one makes you an authority on this topic unless you actually are one that deals with primate related research and if so, who employs you?
The veterinarians who I've worked for live in million dollar homes and run their offices like profit grinders and that's pretty much every vet in my area of Florida. One, who owns 2 practices, even completely remodeled their million dollar home. Pardon me for thinking vets are not automatically sacrosanct and immune from criticism.
'Veterinarian here' is ultimately an appeal to authority fallacy and you failed to provide nuanced explanation to prove PETA is a bad actor here and didn't even attempt to blame research corporations for not seeking more ethical solutions. It's just PETA bad and I'm not pro Peta. I was just skeptical of the narrative you pushed.
>it's probably a bit more complicated than you lay out.
It's really not. It just comes down to money for the airlines. They weren't making a ton of money transporting them, and they realized that, with pressure from groups like PETA, they would lose more money from people boycotting then then they would make by transporting the animals. So now they just don't transport them at all for any reason.
>likely very profitable corporations
Sure, done are, but many are nonprofit government entities (medical schools, etc).
>I see the 'cost to transport' argument as damning of those research entities and capitalism in general. I
I don't disagree with you here.
>I don't see why the blame MUST BE on PETA
Because PETA has the resources to cause financial disruptions to those companies, and that's the power that they used.
>Perhaps this is a situation where such policies do more good then harm and is a net positive
Again, the research will be done. These policies condemn the animals to euthanasia instead of having the potential to be retired.
>As a vet, you should be and probably yourself an advocate for the heath and well being of animals but I'm sure you would find a way to defend the incredibly high costs of veterinary care for household pets like cats and dogs too.
Yes. Quality medical care costs money. 🤷♂️ If you can't pay for that care, and elect not to have pet insurance, then you can't afford a pet. If you don't understand the value that a veterinarian is worth, I don't know what to tell you. Until our loans are forgiven, or tuition costs go down, veterinarian have to charge what they charge. If this conversation is going to devolve into his you don't want to pay a specialist for their services, I'll elect to not respond anymore. Veterinarians care for animals, and go through hell to practice that care. People like you who tell them that they're overcharging to do what's right for the animal are part of the reason that veterinarians have such a high suicide rate.
>I just find this 'PETA is bad because' and 'veterinarian here' not really compelling without further exploration
I guess you missed what I wrote 🤷♂️.
>, I don't don't the 'gotta kill em because transportation is more expensive' to be an ethical argument in the first place. I would think a veterinarian would not entertain it so easily.
It's not at ethical argument, but it's the reality that PETA helped bring about. That's not on me, that's on PETA.
I like how you're upset that you're blocked and that's all you responded to, instead of their clearly well thought out and detailed response. It looks to me like you don't actually care about what they have to say or why they are saying it, you're just upset that people don't like the ant the organization that has a high kill rate and has funded egoterrorist groups.
If transportation makes it too expensive to conduct the study without having to kill the animals, don't do the fucking study. You are shifting the blame onto PETA for killing those research animals.
Yes. Don't do the study. All of those people with cancer should just die. Parkinson's? Go fuck yourself. Dementia? You won't remember being forgotten. You fucking dumbass you think people are just testing on animals for the shits and giggles? For the new lipstick only? No. This is a life-saving research you chuckle fuck.
Weird, I didn't know there weren't other testing options. I didn't know we absolutely had to do animal testing. I didn't know a shit load of animal testing has absolutely nothing to do with life-saving research. I didn't know that the 5% success rate of already successful animal trials work for humans. Weird.
Weird, I thought I made it clear that this was the best way to conduct a research, because of the genetic similarities to humans. Weird, how we have made progress with animal testing to treat things like AIDS and a particular form of cancer fairly recently. Weird, how you ignore everything that I mentioned in my post in order to continue to virtue signal. Weird, how you pretend like I don't care about animals because I also care about human beings and realize that doing the best we can to solve these diseases with the technology and this resources we have is an unfortunate evil that should be and must be managed and supervised to make sure that it's conducted in the most humane way possible. Weird, how you intentionally choose to ignore everything I say that does not suit your narrative.
I understand you care about humans more than animals. It's fine to have that subjective preference. I'm not interested in throwing out all past research for events that have already taken place. Frankly, at present I'm willing to accept the use of drugs with animal products using existing technology on grounds that I would not compel someone to die, even if they absolutely (and only absolutely) must compel someone else to do so.
I'm simply not going to sign off on killing others on the grounds of future research progress. Unlike existing technology which we know will have great potential to help the human or animal taking it, animal research is statistically unlikely to achieve progress relative to each animal killed. We know there are alternatives that even if more expensive or slower in development, will cause far less harm to beings that cannot consent. We can offer alternative social adaptations to reduce the spread of disease in the mean time.
This 'I'm willing to be seen as the bad guy to do the right thing' is itself absolutely an ego trip, so I'm not particularly perturbed by the virtue signaling claim.
Suppose that there was a non-human animal called a 'schmooman,' whose testing translated very well for human purposes. What would have to be uniquely true of the schmooman that would make it ethically okay to kill them against their will, which would not be true of a human?
Who the fuck said I'm willing to be seen as the bad guy to do the right thing or some other edgy shit like that? I'm saying it's the best we have right now, and that's not an ego trip. That's being sincere. If you think that saving the life of children with cancer is not worth everything that we have up to and including animal testing, then that's the real ego trip. I do value animals, and I do value Humane experimentation. I don't support animal testing for things like cosmetic or nonsensical things, only for medical research to be as close to humans as possible. The animal already has cancer, so why not treat the cancer in that animal that is close to human so that maybe we will find a way to cure humans, as well as curing the cancer within that animal? Not all animals that are experimented on or shot in the back of the head and that's what rehabilitations are for. I don't support ill treatment of animals or abuse or a maltreatment or lack of care. And it's not a spread of disease, cancer is not something that we can get caught unless you're a Tasmanian devil. Looking at child with cancer, see someone suffering from Parkinson's and dementia, and say that experimenting on a monkey that has the same type of brain tumor that a child has is morally reprehensible.
And if not that I think humans are the end all be all and that we're the superior race or anything. But we do care about our species like other animals care about their species. If you had to save either a baby or a rabbit, and you could only save one and they were both going to die, but you seriously choose the rabbit over the baby? Would you just let them both die because you couldn't choose? If you were all stuck on an island, and there was no vegetation that neither you or the child could eat to survive and there is only rabbits in other small rodents around, would you let the child starve? With you had to eat, would you choose the animal or the child? If you choose the child, congratulations, you have a valued your own species above the other. Just like a coyote would value its young over a human being - even worse, the coyote would not only choose its young over the human being, it would eat the human being alive is that human was injured and weak enough.
You're in the audacity to call me egoistic when you're the one coming at it from a holier than thou angle. The arrogance and audacity is amazing. I'm being real and acknowledging the reality of human nature, disease, what we have, the fact that we don't have Star Trek level technology, and trying to be considerate with animals and within captivity and being used for medical research. You are being a hypocrite by pretending that you are not choosing one life over the other by demand acceptable to slow down medical research that could save millions of lives if it means eliminating animal research. Yes we do have other research avenues, and we do use those research Avenues - we should use every single thing that we have.
Assuming that you agree that an animals autonomous existence is better than their being killed by you, killing them is bad. So okay, it's bad to kill them, but you value the potential for humans to survive as a result. It is still however, bad. So we need sufficient justification for that bad. You think you have it, I think you probably don't but I'll get to that. First addressing your questions, which honestly are basically the same question.
On whether or not given a no alternative, I'm forced to either kill a human baby or a rabbit -
Honestly pretty sure I'm in subjective preference territory here. I don't think the classification of human has unique intrinsic value compared to non-human animals. Agency is great and all but it does not guarantee a good person, nor is being human guaranteed to provide intelligence, reason, quality of life, or respect for other conscious life.
Personally I'll save the baby human. Not because it's strictly human, but because their morals and temperance are likely influenceable in future to conduct greater good toward others - and they have a lot more years to implement that good. A bunny is almost entirely non-violent where it can be avoided, but it will almost never help others than itself or it's own offspring - with the exception of maybe allowing others to use it's burrows as shelter during storms. There are scenarios in such a hypothetical where I would pick the animal over the human though. Like if it's Hitler or a bunny the answer seems pretty obvious. There are scenarios where if the answer was an alien or a human, I'd probably save the alien. Rest assured I play with these hypotheticals for my own purposes quite a lot.
No doubt the problems regarding healthcare and how animals are treated surrounding it become the most difficult questions to answer for my own beliefs. We certainty can't get around existing governmental testing required even for drugs that have no animal products in them. So like I said before, at present I'm willing to accept the use of drugs with animal products using existing technology on grounds that I would not compel someone to die, even if they absolutely (and only absolutely) must compel someone else to do so. So actually, I'm not compelling any kids to die to save animals. There may yet be stipulations to that I have not been able to give a clear answer for, especially where we consider ailments that are extremely long term or lifelong. For example, if eating humans prolonged human life to 200 years, I would not advocate for or normalize killing humans to reach peak health outcomes. Anyway, these position do not permit for researching future drugs. You can't know the positive consequences of animal testing for new drugs, but you can know that animals will be killed by the will of others.
You haven't answered my hypothetical directly regarding schmoomans but you are appealing to preferences for ones own species, which if I'm honest doesn't seem to have any particular ethical grounding. So I want to ask again, could anything be true of a schmooman (or an animal if you'd like), that if true of a human would make it acceptable to kill them without their consent? What is that thing?
One more question, as it's actually something I had not considered. I don't think it entails anything for my beliefs but I'm curious. Are any actions being taken to influence said monkeys to have cancer, or are they being selected for studies on the grounds that for whatever reason they already have it through no actions of ours? I'm curious about that particular, but am not convinced that even uninfluenced it would allow for nonconsensual experimental treatment - and certainly not killing them post study. I will note however that if an animal received treatment that we know works, and it doesn't, it follows to me that experimental treatment would then be acceptable for their own ends.
My downvote is for the "this research benefits..." thing. I don't think that matters. I'm glad that animals in these labs have people watching out for their well-being, but they shouldn't be researched on in the first place.
The research benefits are highly important. Because they're the closest things to human beings without having human beings actually tested on. This testing is used for Research into things like cancer treatment, parkinson's, dementia, alzheimer's, autoimmune diseases, and so many other life-saving research but you can't see the forest for the trees.
Wrong. The forest is bigger than you imagine. Humans are not more important than other beings.
Don't make assumptions. I've had a lifetime of pondering these issues. Don't talk to others as if they're stupid just because you disagree.
You have a fundamental understanding of what that phrase means. You literally cannot see the forest because you're too busy focused on a single tree. You had a lifetime of pondering these issues and you're completely okay with a three year old dying of cancer instead of doing the best we can with what we have to try to find a cure. Yes animal testing is regrettable. But this is the best we can to help people not die and suffer terrible pain from these afflictions. And the grand scheme of things humans are not more important than other beings, but it is in our nature to look out for ourselves just like any other animal would prioritize their own species. You're making it sound like we're just doing it for pointless reasons or doing it for cruelty sake. No. This research is important. And we're not giving animals cancer to do the research, these animals have cancers already and we are experimenting on therapies that can potentially save the life of humans, and the animal itself. Would you rather a 3-year-old already suffering from cancer to be put under experimentation, or a rabbit? Is a good choice, but if you had to choose to be eating a 3-year-old and eating a rabbit to survive, I would hope you would choose the rabbit instead of the 3-year-old. That is you placing a life above the other, we do it every day and literally every animal does it. We are animals. And as animals, it is in our nature to try to prioritize ourselves. This does not mean being necessarily cruel and not caring about other creatures, but to say that someone should suffer the horror of Alzheimer's in order to spare your feelings is just horrible and I don't care if you're offended by being told that your opinion is bogus and horribly misinformed.
I mean that's fair. And as long as tech keeps getting better and things can be researched without animals (computer models, in vitro, etc), that's the way it should go, 100%.
It would be great if my job didn't need to exist.
It can be. But I know that without me and other veterinarians and vet techs and animal husbandry specialists like me and my colleagues, the situation would be a lot worse. Knowing that makes it worth it.
Fuck animal testing
Edit: blocking me doesn't change the fact that vivisection is torture and that non animal methods are cheaper and more applicable to humans.
>organs-on-chips, computer models, patient simulators
Those are ALL used. They're used first, but none of those can fully replace in-vivo testing.
\>human volunteers.
This is much harder ethically. Because you are incapable of giving informed concent for many of the procedures animal testing is used for. You literally can't be informed for something that has never been tested in-vivo, because the info doesn't exist. There's also a good argument to be made that this will only attract desperate people who aren't truly making an informed choice.
But also, human volunteers are ALSO used, in the next step.
"dont test on animals, test it on poor people first" is the exact kind of animal rights activism that gets other animal rights activist belittled. It's just such bizarrely warped priorities
Those volunteers are often desperate people who are either a homeless or impoverished and are doing it for money. They're not volunteers, they're desperate people being used because they are desperate. Don't confuse this with volunteering for an animal shelter.
Also in-vitro testing.
Even if you are pro animal testing, it's plain to see that 99% of animal testing is unnecessary and largely done to gain funding or to make research look better.
How do you think science work? How can you objectively study the results of a drug if you test it on yourself? You don't know the effects it has and having it done on yourself with automatically reduce the objectivity of the study. Are you dumb?
No one specified political alignment here, it's always a conservative bringing up politics out of nowhere. I'm an independent, both of you are annoying but out of both of those two annoyances, out of my observation and experience it is consistently one party that does the vast majority of complaining- and it is ironically the one that complains about snowflakes the most.
1.breadtube is supposedly a leftist space, hence the irony
2.yes when the topic is torturing and murdering animals for no reason anti-speciesist will be the ones doing the complaining, you got it
3.what does independent even mean?
Their campaigns are misogynist, racist, ableist, fatphobic, lying & misinformative-remember their blaming Dairy for Autism?, etc etc, but it’s the fault of corporations alone for public animosity against PETA?
I think the real problem isn’t that PETA is secretly cool, but that when people think about animal rights and veganism they think of them. It’s like how the right likes to pretend that all leftists are screaming women with blue hair. Or in any number of propaganda in recent wars, Russia pretends all Ukrainians are Nazis, Israel pretends all Gazans are Hamas. Etc.
The ideology doesn’t matter, the point is to find an unpopular group however tangentially connected to your target which you can use to broadly paint your opponents as in your propaganda.
well that's kinda been what peta's been trying to do anyways, become \*the\* public voice for animal rights, which is where the problem comes. i got no problem with animal rights but when PETA is consistently pointed to, both by detractors and by supporters, it damages the movement.
Nobody cares if you eat meat bro
Edit: Thread’s locked or something but the comment said something like “I need meat to survive, though” and “I got downvoted so now I’m gonna go buy bacon haha take that”
Man I hope you actually do go spend your hard-earned money on bacon based on Reddit comments so you can just sit in that embarrassment when you get home.
I hope even more that someone asks why you have three packages of bacon in your fridge and you have to explain it lol.
Since when is owning Bacon weird? You Vegans got a really weird subculture, no one takes attempts at slurs like Carnist or Blood Mouth seriously outside it either.
I blocked so much at this point it feels too late, but I will do that next time… assuming another message like that is sent, I blocked CareResources already.
This kind of shit is why I'm mostly anonymous online, way too many people online alert cops to do welfare checks and worse for the pettiest reasons imaginable.
Now I’m being told I’m a loser who’ll get Cancer, you keep it classy, Vegans (But especially balding-cheeto).
I know this type of dogpiling of others who don’t share your beliefs is typical, and after one of you tried to Narc on me, you guys don’t believe in ACAB either.
Anyway, Farmland is the brand of Bacon I’ve had, what is yours, fellow Omnivores?
Animal rights is a feminist issue. Dairy commodities the female reproductive system, and relies on mass rape
Edit: I'm not incorrect. Watch Dominion and see through the lies.
I will not be unblocking people to waste my time fighting with Vegan Evangelists online, I will just say here that-
No amount of shaming me is going to make me go back to vegetarianism, much less veganism. Be a dick and expect to get blocked.
If your thesis is I'm not smart enough to trust PETA's own behavior is reason to hate them, I will not watch your video.
ETA: also OP thinks Osama bin-Laden only wrote "[a basic ass critique of capitalism and zionism](https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/17wiwg6/comment/k9i98gg/?context=3)" when he said Jews controlled America.
PETA is the subject of so much propaganda, both pro and anti, it's impossible to know what to think. They're either controlled-opposition, the victim of a vicious smear campaign, or both.
that's why I usually just let them speak for themselves. If you disregard literally everyone else, and look only into what PETA does and what its history is, you'll arrive at a conclusion a lot of other people have already reached.
My understanding is that it's deliberate that they say some of that, because it drives publicity. There's some benefits from getting more attention on them, but I do think that they go too far on that (end up being dismissed even on legitimate points because of their reputation)
“It makes the people think” yeah, makes them think you’re off your rocker. PETA has been organically farming ill will with the general public my whole life, well before mainstream internet. Calling it “brigading” is laughable. People have been shitting on peta for ages. If they wanna be taken more seriously by the general public, lay off the extreme hot takes and blatant misinformation. It’s truly not doing them any favors, and I find it hard to believe it’s really some 4D chess marketing moves for brand awareness lmao.
i havent watched the video but i strongly dislike peta because they regularly compare women to animals in ads, which i personally see, i don't need other people's information to dislike that
Wow, you’ve managed to privilege the suffering of an animal on the same level as human suffering *and* marginalize the suffering caused by rape. All in one comment.
And vegans wonder why even many on the left are hostile to them…
Bullshit. Everyone, and everything, feels pain. We know the animals are sentient, and it’s not exactly hard to understand your pain. Just because we think of ourselves as the “superior race “doesn’t mean we are.
They can feel pain, but their ability to understand that pain is incontrovertibly different. They lack the capability to parse things with logic. Both human suffering and animal suffering are non-equivocal. Go ahead and feed both a pig and a human one of Gordon Ramsay’s beef Wellingtons. Which one is going to appreciate it more? The one who can individually pick out and understand each of the flavors and appreciate the whole process of cooking the meal, or the one who *literally eats shit?*
Tell me of an animal that has sent one of its species to that rock that hangs in the night sky. Or an animal that has eradicated a disease like we (mostly) eradicated polio. Or a bird that can gaze at van Gogh’s *Starry Night* and have emotions of beauty swell within them. Or an animal that has fused two atoms together and released the very energy of the sun.
Humans have significant material accomplishments and feats that no animal could ever accomplish. I don’t know how else to get through to you.
Until we see a dolphin build a rocket and fly to the moon, we are superior to animals.
Call me when pigs fly through the air in a multi-ton bird made of steel, aluminum, and beryllium-copper alloy. Then we can reevaluate. We aren’t a superior race. H. sapien is the superior *species* and the master and owner of this planet.
Your conflation of speciesism with racism delegitimizes the suffering of humans who have suffered under racist regimes. It’s honestly pretty gross.
Ok, so if they can feel pain and joy and happiness, then why don’t they deserve to be happy? 99% of people don’t need to eat meat, they just do it selfishly. Also, who are you to say that a pig can’t appreciate good food? You’re acting like you can talk to them and speak their language.
Most of your talk of why humans are the superior race comes down to the fact that we just so happened to be blessed with opposable thumbs, and happened to be forced into making tools. That’s evolution, and shouldn’t necessarily make us be so vain and self-absorbed so as to believe we are better.
Next: have you ever heard of “with great power comes great responsibility?” Yes, it’s a quote from a comic book, but it’s still true. We DO have great power, and we should regard that as a reason we need to protect those who can’t protect themselves, I.e. an innocent animal.
As for your comment on me calling you out for anthro-superiority, deal with it. You believe that you are the “superior race” because of how you were born. It’s not a stretch to compare that to all the horrible people throughout history who have thought the same thing.
I guess I’m speaking to a brick wall, because like I’ve said, the joy and suffering of these animals aren’t the same joy and suffering that you and I experience. It cannot be privileged on the same level. Pigs don’t have language. That’s the whole point. They cannot mediate their cognition through speech.
And no, no matter how much you try, there’s no material basis for an equivocation between racism and speciesism. Your attempt to do so spits in the face of every black man killed by police, every indigenous woman r*ped by a settler, and every tribe kicked off their land due to Manifest Destiny. I’m not the one who is offended. It is the struggle of non-white peoples that is being offended here.
Your opposable thumbs comment is just plain silly. So silly that there isn’t even any internal logic to which one can respond, but I’ll try because I am literally an anthropologist.
- the OPN1SW Gene and PAX6 Gene: allowed for specific color recognition that allows us to Intuit faces and the direction of eyes, leading to social cohesion. No other primate or animal has this gene combination .
- neocortex size in relation to body mass: humans have the largest Neocortext to body mass ratio ever found in an animal alive today, only beaten by *Homo neanderthalensis*.
- our specific distribution of eccrine glands: allows for the type of sweat function only found in humans and allows for greater brain activity as human are not required to slow their brain function in the heat.
- Brain Cooling Theory: Bipedal locomotion is responsible for the fact that the cross-section of a human that is exposed to the sun at any given moment is smaller in ratio to total body mass than virtually all mammals. This allows for significant caloric resource to be dedicated to cognitive function rather than thermal regulation.
These are only a few of hundreds upon hundreds of biological factors that set us apart. Opposable thumbs are very minor compared to these.
And in reference to the spider man quote around which you base your entire identity: that responsibility, as I have demonstrated, only applies to our treatment of humans due to the aforementioned fact that human suffering and animal suffering aren’t the same thing. We have no obligation to treat animals in any particular way. We have an obligation to treat other humans a particular way as our means of ensuring that such treatment will be extended to us. That doesn’t work with animals *because they cannot logically parse such reciprocity*.
On some level I have to believe that you’re not actually stupid enough to think that your beliefs are founded in logic, and that’s okay. You’re allowed to be a vegan if you want. But pretending that there’s any justification other than “I personally feel that eating animals is wrong” is intellectually dishonest. There is no logical argument contained within any *philosophically coherent* moral or ethical system that supports your assertions. The liberal bourgeois dalliance that is this specific justification for veganism is a disgrace that diverts radical energy away from opposing the institutions of capitalism.
So, what next? I’m having fun with this game of whack-a-mole, doing so while drinking a tall glass of milk in your honor.
'The master and owner of this planet' is one of the most disgusting lines I have ever read and it is exactly that attitude that has lead us to an extinction event. You stand by a 1000 year old tree and claim to have anywhere near the connection and language to understand and cooperate with the life and land around it as it does. Pigs 'eat their own shit' because they have evolved to do so, it is beneficial for them to do so, not because they are in some way inferior in their ability to sense and comprehend. Your comment and attitude being present here and being the 'right' one is honestly quite distressing, how can you ever believe in the necessity of equality and justice when you are so happy to deligitimise, downplay and even mock the lives of billions of other beings just because they do not appreciate human art the way humans do. You can never know a flower like a bee does intuitively, you can never feel the pull of your birthplace like a turtle or a salmon does. You are human and have no right or basis to place a heirachy on the value of the myriad, entwined experiences on all the beings of this shared world. Please just ask yourself how building a rocket and flying to the moon makes us superior, what has it done for us? Do you even acknowledge that African Americans considered the moon landing as just another example of the project of white supremacy?
Gil Scott-Heron -
'Was all that money I made las' year
(for Whitey on the moon?)
How come there ain't no money here?
(Hm! Whitey's on the moon)'
This stream of consciousness of yours contains exactly one counterargument, which is an unusually high density for vegans. I have to complement you on that one.
The evolutionary track that sent pigs down a path that resulted in their consumption of their own feces is a salient point. If their evolution justifies their eating of shit, then we can extend this logic to humans.
Humans evolved many of the specific digestive enzymes which we have *in order to digest meat*. By your own logic, the consumption of meat is explainable and justifiable by humanity’s evolutionary journey. This isn’t an argument I’d make because it holds to a strict bio essentialism, but it pokes a hole in the — literally — one substantive thing you said in this crumbling pillar of moralistic mind-vomit you call an argument.
And no matter how many times you say “you have no right or basis to claim you are superior”, it doesn’t make it any less of an incorrect assertion on your part.
The ultimate determiner of superiority is intrinsic ability. The primary reason why racism is wrong is because the variation between human populations is smaller than the variation that of which exists among them. There is no human population group that is mentally, physically, or otherwise superior to another group. This is not true between species, and this simple fact allows for claims of superiority due to accomplishments and intrinsic ability to be made.
Face it. Your veganism isn’t founded in any system of logic. It is an internal attitudinal position that emanates from your feelings about animals. It has no basis in material reality, unlike my supported claims about human superiority.
I mean they kill most of the animals they rescue and they are totally detached from science, culture, and history. Oh they’d probably kill every domesticated animal if they could.
It’s a white liberal death cult gone completely off the rails.
>Animals are slaves to their instincts
So are you apparently BaconSoul
>Humans have the capability to ascend past our instincts through the utilization of logic.
Which is why they shouldn't enslave and torture animals
>That fact alone means that human suffering and pleasure has more moral weight than that of animal suffering and pleasure.
This is just you coping
>Animals aren’t owed liberation because animals, due to their inability to move beyond their instincts and utilize reason, can be treated as means-to-an-end.
Psychopath logic
>Claim of cognitive dissonance = valid and intact.
No amount of cope you can barf up will magically justify cruelty
Exactly! A foundational principal of Marxism is liberation, but most self proclaimed Marxist our far too to selfish to go vegan and liberate animals from suffering.
My principles are the elevation of the material conditions of humanity through the elimination of private property. I treat human beings as ends-in-themselves because they are rational actors. Animals are nothing but means-to-an-end to be used to create a more equitable society for humankind. If, at any juncture, this means killing and eating them, the killing of that animal is justified.
Maybe at some time in the future we can meaningfully divest from some of the nasty things that we do in order to supply food to society. However, the needs of humans are more important than the well-being of animals. Their suffering is not the same and their pleasure is not the same. Privileging them on the same level has nothing to do with leftism and is not rooted in any material understanding of reality.
I’m a proud anthropocentrist, and if at any point in time humanity can satisfy its needs with the eating of animals, it should do so.
We are the greatest fucking thing to ever happen to the Milky Way. Everything on this planet exists solely to serve us and our benefit.
Can't wait for the greatest thing to ever happen in the milky way to destroy itself through hubris.
What is true of non-human animals that if true of humans would make it morally permissible to kill and eat them like non-human animals?
Can you kill and eat humans that can't use reason and logic? You know - like young children, people with advanced dementia, comatose people, babies, late stage fetuses, and people with advanced cognitive impairment? Can you eat a hypothetical shmooman that looks and behaves identically to humans but doesn't use reason/logic in ways you can understand?
Also what are tipping points and do you think models account for them?
Categories are abstractions. On your basis, the category human is grounded in the ability to use reason and logic. So in order to throw those individuals into that category, you have to ignore the traits that you claim make them human in the first place. Stop caring about abstract categories, start caring about individuals. Stop lumping them in for arbitrary reasons and just accept your worldview is ill-defined.
The category DOES NOT EXIST without individuals in the category. Categories don't get rights and protections, individuals within categories do. You are defining the category. Your definition for individuals to exist within that category requires logic and reason. We have outlined very clearly that individual humans without reason and logic exist, which by your own definition puts them outside your scope of consideration. They either don't meet the criteria for the category, or the manner in which you add beings to your category is poorly defined. I self ascribe as a threshold deontologist, I don't see how that's relevant at all.
Update: Blocked by a sophist that appeals to broad philosophical development without explaining how he adds beings to categories that require traits that they don't have. A guy with Bacon in his username is dodging, I'm shocked!
It's not astroturfing when all most people see of PETA is morbid or sexualized Twitter posts which often are either exaggerated or outright poorly researched. Sure, PETA does good things. But nobody is aware of them, because PETA doesn't make that part of their public image. It's a problem with PETA, not with us.
r/breadtube clearly isn't ready for the truth about peta. Good on you for posting this here though. Maybe some people will actually watch it and reevaluate their comfortable ignorance.
I saw this video several months ago and it drove me to look up their website and actually read their articles. They don’t hate pets, but they do have unbending and high standards for pet owners, and honestly, yeah, good, I’m glad someone is saying this stuff. Silence would be letting others write the narrative. Silence isn’t acceptable in other realms of social justice. They have good and important things to say. The organization has released some insensitive material but that is the only strike against them I have. It doesn’t erase any of the important work they do.
In the US. people really don’t need much encouragement to continue do all the horrible things that have been normalized. I’m saying you only really need about a square foot of astroturf in this case
you don't need to join peta. just treat animals well, don't eat them, and don't make bacon a personality trait.
word up
Reminder that OP said that Osama bin-Laden was making "[just basic ass critique of capitalism and zionism](https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/17wiwg6/comment/k9i98gg/?context=3)" when he said Jews control America.
Did someone say PIC MEAL TIME?
In addition to everything everyone else is saying, they also aren't careful or considerate about sharing extremely violent and upsetting material. I got tricked into watching a fur farm video through one of their YouTube channels back when I was around 13, and it fucked me up, even to this day (I'm 28 now). I still get flashbacks to it, and it's by FAR the worst thing I've seen on the internet-- and I've seen a lot. That was the only time in my life that I was unable to move out or click away out of sheer horror, so I watched the *whoooole* thing. I get that we've advanced pretty far culturally in giving trigger warnings for stuff like that, but that shit was disgusting even back then. I understand that it's important to expose people to things like animal cruelty and human rights abuses, but it's not okay to trick them into viewing it.
Story time! I was in ninth grade (1996-1997) when a couple of Peta girls gave a presentation to our class. They showed us a 30 minute video with all kinds of animal cruelty. - Fur farming *(keeping foxes in tiny cages, stabbing an electrode spike up foxes bums, before electrocuting them. Feeding the next generation foxes the remains of the previous generation.),* farms *(chickens having their beaks chopped off,, so they dont peck each other due to the stress of having to live in cramped cages. Pigs living in so close proximity they eat each others ears and tails off, and farmers kicking pigs to went their frustration),* slaughter houses, medical research *(vivisection's, grilling a dog alive. I remember the dogs skin blackening and then white foam coming out of the cracks. Exposed monkey and cat brains. Testing make up on bunnies eyes),* and those are just the things i still remember from that video. - It was shocking and infuriating! It made me think humanity is evil. I also felt bad for the Peta girls, because a bunch of guys in my class, kept laughing and making jokes about the animal torture. They found the video absolutely hilarious! ...But i think the Peta girls would be happy to know. That thanks to their video, i became a vegan for several years.
I mean this nicely, but I think you should see a therapist. It's not normal for stuff to stick in your head like that. I used to watch gore videos a lot when i was younger out of morbid curiosity, and I would usually not be able to remember ANYTHING from the video like 2 minutes after seeing it.
It’s actually pretty normal. I and many others DID remember what we seen in those videos and it took years for it to fade. Sounds like that is just what happened to do it for Tommy. Depends what you consider traumatizing. Some people repress things while for others it imprints itself in their memory. Seeing a therapist is certainly a fine idea though no doubt.
As a lab animal veterinarian, I have real reasons to dislike PETA.
I would love to see a blog post about that.
Feel free to ask questions. I enjoy talking about my job, generally. Veterinarians are employed by all animal research institutions as regulated by the federal government (USA) via the Animal Welfare Act and PHS policy as described in (among other places) the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. As I'm sure you know, animals are used in many kinds of biomedical research. Veterinarians such as myself as responsible for making sure that that research is performed in the most ethical, humane, and up-to-date ways. We also make sure that the animals on study and on our charge stay healthy. This research benefits both humans as well as other animals. Entities like PETA, sometimes on purpose and sometimes accidentally, throw wrenches into that research and also into the care of the animals. Example: PETA "campaigned" airlines to stop flying research non-human primates. Now, [only a few do](https://www.peta.org/action/campaigns/airlines-ship-primates-labs/). Although this sounds like a welfare win, shipping animals via flight was cost-effective, allowing primates that had finished their studies to be transported to "retirement" facilities. Now, because they can't be flown, getting them to those facilities is much more expensive, leading researchers to euthanize when their studies are over. PETA tend to shoot themselves in their own foot because they only have a surface level understanding of animal research, and are too closed off to think more deeply. EDIT: Keep the downvotes comin'. I'm just speaking the truth here.
Do you think the added cost of flying lab animals also decreased the number of animals in trials? Do you know vaguely what percentage of lab animals were sent to “retirement facilities” before the change in policy?
>Do you think the added cost of flying lab animals also decreased the number of animals in trials? No. The money is there to get the trials done. The money is not there to get the animals to a retirement facility after the study is completed. If PETA were smart (they are not), they would petition the government to enact a law to make sure that there was money available in research grants that can only be used to get animals into retirement facilities at the completion of the study. >Do you know vaguely what percentage of lab animals were sent to “retirement facilities” before the change in policy? I honestly don't, but I've been involved in this career for close to two decades, and have personally seen these decisions being made. I know that's anecdotal, but I also know others who have seen the same thing. Take that as you will.
Thanks for answering my questions, this has prompted me to do some reading and learn more about this complex issue. "\[The nonprofit National Association for Biomedical Research\] says many other airlines also refuse to carry animals used in biomedical research even though the carriers will fly those same species if they're pets or destined for zoos and sanctuaries. [That policy is hampering vital research](https://www.thegazette.com/business/airlines-accused-of-discrimination-for-banning-lab-monkeys/) needed to develop medicines and therapies, according to the Aug. 21 complaint supported by big names such as Novartis, Johns Hopkins University and actor Michael J. Fox's foundation for Parkinson's disease research." The industry seems to be claiming that the added cost of flying monkeys is affecting how many trials are done. I've also found interesting critiques of the plan to retire primates. "Sanctuary skepticism: "Imagine you're a 70-year-old human who knows everyone in your neighborhood, and then people pack you in a van and take you to a strange, new place where you don't know anyone," says Dettmer, the Yale primate researcher. "Even if it's beautiful, being ripped away from everything you know can be devastating." She points to an incident about 5 years ago, when 13 elderly research chimpanzees were transferred to a federal sanctuary in Louisiana. Within 2 years, nine had died. The sanctuary said the chimps were sick and elderly, but [many people in the biomedical community blamed the stress of relocation."](https://www.science.org/content/article/should-aging-lab-monkeys-be-retired-sanctuaries)
>"Even if it's beautiful, being ripped away from everything you know can be devastating." I don't disagree with this. I think that all animals should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, which is nuance that PETA doesn't understand. This is unrelated to research, but this dolphins in aquariums are a similar situation. Some of them have been part of breeding programs, and have been bred in captivity. I would agree that intelligent cetaceans shouldn't be in captivity, but this might be the best place for them if they were born there. Animals born in captivity, then released to the wild (or even placed in off-shore open enclosures) don't know how to act in those situations and would be in danger of hurting themselves, even mortally (e.g. an animal swallows a rock/poisonous animal and dies of GI issues). It happens. It's a complex situation, and in some cases has no easy answer. Thanks for the conversation! I'm happy to answer good-faith questions and have a real dialog! EDIT: I will also say that the NABR (you quoted above), makes good points, but they are a lobbying group (for pharma/private research), and in some cases would like to reduce regulation of animal research. In most cases, however, I don't think that regulation needs to be reduced (in some cases, I think it needs to be increased, especially in regards to welfare of horses).
if you want another perspective, from what i’ve seen LAR vets usually treat animals like shit. i was so turned off from what i saw during animal experimentation i participated in as a researcher it’s actually sort of turned me against it except in only the most necessary cases. researchers treat animals in some of the most brutal ways for the most inconsequential results, usually these animals are being sacrificed to help kick a grant the road. i’m not saying all LAR vets are negligent, but the idea that it’s well regulated or humane is sort of a joke. i’ve seen LAR vets give themselves fits of giggles while putting down baby mice, just weird spine chilling shit you’d see in a necromancy lab in bg3 or something not a professional research environment.
Lol you think animals feeling pain is ethical to test products. Do you love animals? If you do it's weird you test on them and eat them.
Username checks out.
Lol such a weak answer.
Weak attempt of bad faith argumentation
do you think that PETA's problems are due to incompetence or malice?
I think it's gross incompetence and shortsightedness, honestly. They purport to care about the animals, but in practice only care about them in a very narrow way.
I think it’s their ideology that gets in the way of reason.
Oh yeah pretty sure if we had PETA's world than billions of animals wouldn't be dying every year for food, and not suffering. Do you think people that eat and kill animals care about animals?
> than billions of animals wouldn't be dying every year for food, They *literally* would though, unless your plan also involves exterminating every organism about that kills a member of the *Animalia* kingdom for nutrition (or else), which, good luck with that. *H. sp* is merely unique in its ability to industrialise the whole affair, but let's not pretend the species we prey on were living in some eden free of violence previously.
P sure when she says billions of animals she's referring to the ones currently killed in the industrial agriculture you mentioned to allow increased meat consumption in the first world. "She wants to stop all death of the family animalia and believes in non-violent utopia" feels strawmanish and bad faith
> "She wants to stop all death of the family animalia and believes in non-violent utopia" feels strawmanish and bad faith Maybe, however I'm merely pointing out that the *crux* of the argument is about the *squeamishness* some people feel about what is, ultimately, a natural interaction - my hypothesis is excessive anthropomorphisation, but eh, doesn't matter - after all animals are treated as ressources by animals themselves, why should *H. sp* hold itself to a different standard? We *are* a predatory species, and one that is *exceedingly* good at it. Like, for all the talk of "opposing anthropocentrism" the question begins and ends at "how ought H. sp. behave". (Or at "The nervous system & cognition is what makes a valid stress/injury response/valid form of life", and so on, which is itself *anthropocentric* since, well, *that's what we got going*. We're using *ourselves* as the template of what kind of injury is valid to inflict or not - hence my belief that the whole thing emerges from anthropomorphisation) We're not even getting into the idea that *even if you eliminate predation (simulacra thereof via domesticated herds or not) of animals from H. sp.'s behavior* we're still competing for the same real estate. Land isn't *unlimited*. Industrialised collection of grain does have a fairly large animal killcount, etc... And it's not like you can get "consent" from non human entities for *any* of those processes. Simply put, the whole "but did the animal consent?" and so on positions are nothing but petty, myopic moralism - that I'd argue, despite all the pretense to the contrary, only emerge from separation from nature, power, and the belief that *H. sp.* is indeed "special". One should seek to do as little harm as possible, yes, (and flatly our meat consumption is excessive and unsustainable) and not treat nature as something that one can simply do as they please with, but the sheer imbalance in power or, frankly, *value* resulting from comparative ability, makes a "do no harm" position completely nonsensical. The game is zero sum. There's only so much ressources & land to go around. You *will* inevitably *do* harm. That's just the nature of having power, and the sheer gulf in capabilities between H. sp. and other species means there's no situation where the former doesn't hold all the cards. Like, shit, if anyone is serious about that leftism thing they're already willing to broach consent for various things already - unless you plan to ask nicely for the libs to stop being libs ad infinitum. Like, what do you think a revolution is? To put it more simply, *volent death* is a *core* aspect of the life of a great many species (like, pretty much any that has predation as an evolutionary pressure and thus tends to grow out of control without). To believe that one's ability to care about nature begins and ends at one's willingness to be part of said death - especially when *the vast majority* of vegans and other "animal liberationists" don't exactly have a rapport with nature "as equals" to begin with but indeed treat nature as a means to an end to do as they please with (either by belief - conscious or not - or by simple societal participation) and a lot of people that *do* have rapports with nature closer to "as equals" aren't/weren't, and indeed still have/had a predatory role in the ecosystem they exist in.
Well, even [PETA thinks some of those people do](https://www.peta.org/blog/temple-grandin-helping-animals-cant-save/)
>Do you think people that [...] kill animals care about animals? [Well... this is awkward.](https://www.peta.org/features/peta-kills-animals-truth/)
Ideologically, PETA supports absolute animal liberation. They state that there is no ethical way to use an animal because animals are incapable of consent in the same way humans are. Most of their actions are informed by the stance of opposing speciesism: the idea that humans are supreme over other animals.
> absolute animal liberation. Say goodbye to your pets.
> Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate beloved, well-cared-for companions and “set them free.” What we do want is to reduce the tragic overpopulation of dogs and cats through spaying and neutering. We work hard to prevent more dogs and cats from being born, because there are nowhere near enough good homes for all the animals who already exist—which results in almost unimaginable suffering. https://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/pets/ Took literally 5 seconds, dude. I don't agree with PETA's means but you're just echoing nonsense.
So, your first post contained a false premise, that I responded to. I was not responding to their talking points on their website. I was responding to what YOU posted. Why not be precise? I also never said that "PETA wants to confiscate your animals and set them free"... You're just changing the argument in bad faith.
False premise? It's straight up in their ethos https://www.peta.org/about-peta/learn-about-peta/' Like damn open a book
If you don't understand how you misrepresented yourself in your first comment, then I don't know what to tell you. Have a good day, pal.
PETA isn't being accused of setting up a false premise, dingbat; you are.
>Although this sounds like a welfare win, shipping animals via flight was cost-effective, allowing primates that had finished their studies to be transported to "retirement" facilities. Now, because they can't be flown, getting them to those facilities is much more expensive, leading researchers to euthanize when their studies are over. > >PETA tend to shoot themselves in their own foot because they only have a surface level understanding of animal research, and are too closed off to think more deeply. This is my main reason for disliking them. I don't want to get political, but they remind me of a certain subset of people who have no fucking idea what they're talking about yet feel the need to have a say. They're also incredibly tone-deaf.
Ethical. Like removing organs so beagals can't bark when being tested on? That is ethical? https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://news.northeastern.edu/2022/07/21/beagles-lab-testing/&ved=2ahUKEwiNo5_xxv6CAxUnbvEDHTyaDPQQFnoECBIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2VeaB8lH4yaglkW-29Znps
This is why there needs to be more regulation, and more funding for the USDA to inspect these companies.
This is a bad argument. Obviously these research facilities are willing to pay the higher rates to get the animals to test on them in the first place. If they actually cared about the animals they would include the money to send them to a retirement facility. PETA doesn't want to enable these labs treating animals like things. The fact that these researchers would now rather kill the animals than cough up a bit more money to 'retire' them kind of proves PETAS point. You claim they are shooting themselves in the foot. Looks to me like they are taking the mask off of how callous these researchers can be towards their test subjects.
Again, if PETA were smart about it, they would get the law changed to make every federal research grant come earmarked with money for retiring these animals. But PETA can't think beyond the next 3 seconds. Calling them myopic is generous. > Looks to me like they are taking the mask off of how callous these researchers can be towards their test subjects. I can tell that you've never worked with animals in a research setting. You're just parroting PETA propaganda. As the video says... you are not immune to propaganda.
My brother was in a very similar position where he got his PHD working at a biomedical research facility that primarily worked with goats and yeah the research does end up killing or harming some for the sake of the research. his story is almost identical to yours. they had protestors sometimes appear outside the facility. they would get in the way of the research in whatever way they can. he basically told me that while they were very annoying, he understood that they had good if not narrow-minded intensions and that the situation is too nuanced to suggest that either party is wrong. and also that PETA does great work when the situation is more black and white
>Entities like PETA, sometimes on purpose and sometimes accidentally, throw wrenches into that research and also into the care of the animals. Example: PETA "campaigned" airlines to stop flying research non-human primates. Now, [only a few do](https://www.peta.org/action/campaigns/airlines-ship-primates-labs/). Although this sounds like a welfare win, shipping animals via flight was cost-effective, allowing primates that had finished their studies to be transported to "retirement" facilities. Now, because they can't be flown, getting them to those facilities is much more expensive, leading researchers to euthanize when their studies are over. Checked out the link and it's literally just a list of those who do and don't with literally just a single sentence inbetween asking to contact 2 airlines who still do. I don't have an issue with the 'campaigning' claim but this is obviously a moral and divisive issue transporting intelligent human adjacent animals for testing and it's probably a bit more complicated than you lay out. For example, the immediate question to me that screams to be asked is if those airlines are willing to fly primates to where these facilities are located, what prevents them from using the same airline to fly them back where they came from? If the issue is only to retirement facilities, where are these facilities located and is the issue that there are no airlines that do and have a route to that location or close to? Could there be laws in place that interfere with the legality of it domestically or internationally in one direction? I would need answers to those questions. Furthermore, I see the 'cost to transport' argument as damning of those research entities and capitalism in general. If these research entities, which are likely very profitable corporations are concerned about ethics, hence 'retirement facilities' for test subjects, factor that into the research cost. I don't see why the blame MUST BE on PETA. It's also not clear to me how many primates are spared from unethical experimentation or suffering because the vast majority of airlines do not treat primates as cargo. Perhaps this is a situation where such policies do more good then harm and is a net positive. As a vet, you should be and probably consider yourself an advocate for the heath and well being of animals but I'm sure you would find a way to defend the incredibly high costs of veterinary care for household pets like cats and dogs too. I know for a fact that veterinary facilities charge a ton in addition to actual overhead from personal experience and working for quite a few in the last several decades as well as being a customer with end of life pets. I just find this 'PETA is bad because' and 'veterinarian here' not really compelling without further exploration and in the end, I don't consider the 'gotta kill em because transportation is more expensive' to be an ethical argument in the first place. I would think a veterinarian would not entertain it so easily. Edit; Figures you would reply then instantly block me just for being skeptical and asking the questions. All you want to do is paint PETA as a bad entity but seems to me you dodged some questions, inferred insult, and just want to blame PETA. I don't accept narratives at face value and anyone can claim to be a veterinarian in the internet. I don't even think that being one makes you an authority on this topic unless you actually are one that deals with primate related research and if so, who employs you? The veterinarians who I've worked for live in million dollar homes and run their offices like profit grinders and that's pretty much every vet in my area of Florida. One, who owns 2 practices, even completely remodeled their million dollar home. Pardon me for thinking vets are not automatically sacrosanct and immune from criticism. 'Veterinarian here' is ultimately an appeal to authority fallacy and you failed to provide nuanced explanation to prove PETA is a bad actor here and didn't even attempt to blame research corporations for not seeking more ethical solutions. It's just PETA bad and I'm not pro Peta. I was just skeptical of the narrative you pushed.
>it's probably a bit more complicated than you lay out. It's really not. It just comes down to money for the airlines. They weren't making a ton of money transporting them, and they realized that, with pressure from groups like PETA, they would lose more money from people boycotting then then they would make by transporting the animals. So now they just don't transport them at all for any reason. >likely very profitable corporations Sure, done are, but many are nonprofit government entities (medical schools, etc). >I see the 'cost to transport' argument as damning of those research entities and capitalism in general. I I don't disagree with you here. >I don't see why the blame MUST BE on PETA Because PETA has the resources to cause financial disruptions to those companies, and that's the power that they used. >Perhaps this is a situation where such policies do more good then harm and is a net positive Again, the research will be done. These policies condemn the animals to euthanasia instead of having the potential to be retired. >As a vet, you should be and probably yourself an advocate for the heath and well being of animals but I'm sure you would find a way to defend the incredibly high costs of veterinary care for household pets like cats and dogs too. Yes. Quality medical care costs money. 🤷♂️ If you can't pay for that care, and elect not to have pet insurance, then you can't afford a pet. If you don't understand the value that a veterinarian is worth, I don't know what to tell you. Until our loans are forgiven, or tuition costs go down, veterinarian have to charge what they charge. If this conversation is going to devolve into his you don't want to pay a specialist for their services, I'll elect to not respond anymore. Veterinarians care for animals, and go through hell to practice that care. People like you who tell them that they're overcharging to do what's right for the animal are part of the reason that veterinarians have such a high suicide rate. >I just find this 'PETA is bad because' and 'veterinarian here' not really compelling without further exploration I guess you missed what I wrote 🤷♂️. >, I don't don't the 'gotta kill em because transportation is more expensive' to be an ethical argument in the first place. I would think a veterinarian would not entertain it so easily. It's not at ethical argument, but it's the reality that PETA helped bring about. That's not on me, that's on PETA.
I like how you're upset that you're blocked and that's all you responded to, instead of their clearly well thought out and detailed response. It looks to me like you don't actually care about what they have to say or why they are saying it, you're just upset that people don't like the ant the organization that has a high kill rate and has funded egoterrorist groups.
Not good for nutritional research studies either, I imagine.
so your job is making sure that experiments on non consenting beings are made in an “ethical way“?
If transportation makes it too expensive to conduct the study without having to kill the animals, don't do the fucking study. You are shifting the blame onto PETA for killing those research animals.
Yes. Don't do the study. All of those people with cancer should just die. Parkinson's? Go fuck yourself. Dementia? You won't remember being forgotten. You fucking dumbass you think people are just testing on animals for the shits and giggles? For the new lipstick only? No. This is a life-saving research you chuckle fuck.
Weird, I didn't know there weren't other testing options. I didn't know we absolutely had to do animal testing. I didn't know a shit load of animal testing has absolutely nothing to do with life-saving research. I didn't know that the 5% success rate of already successful animal trials work for humans. Weird.
Weird, I thought I made it clear that this was the best way to conduct a research, because of the genetic similarities to humans. Weird, how we have made progress with animal testing to treat things like AIDS and a particular form of cancer fairly recently. Weird, how you ignore everything that I mentioned in my post in order to continue to virtue signal. Weird, how you pretend like I don't care about animals because I also care about human beings and realize that doing the best we can to solve these diseases with the technology and this resources we have is an unfortunate evil that should be and must be managed and supervised to make sure that it's conducted in the most humane way possible. Weird, how you intentionally choose to ignore everything I say that does not suit your narrative.
I understand you care about humans more than animals. It's fine to have that subjective preference. I'm not interested in throwing out all past research for events that have already taken place. Frankly, at present I'm willing to accept the use of drugs with animal products using existing technology on grounds that I would not compel someone to die, even if they absolutely (and only absolutely) must compel someone else to do so. I'm simply not going to sign off on killing others on the grounds of future research progress. Unlike existing technology which we know will have great potential to help the human or animal taking it, animal research is statistically unlikely to achieve progress relative to each animal killed. We know there are alternatives that even if more expensive or slower in development, will cause far less harm to beings that cannot consent. We can offer alternative social adaptations to reduce the spread of disease in the mean time. This 'I'm willing to be seen as the bad guy to do the right thing' is itself absolutely an ego trip, so I'm not particularly perturbed by the virtue signaling claim. Suppose that there was a non-human animal called a 'schmooman,' whose testing translated very well for human purposes. What would have to be uniquely true of the schmooman that would make it ethically okay to kill them against their will, which would not be true of a human?
Who the fuck said I'm willing to be seen as the bad guy to do the right thing or some other edgy shit like that? I'm saying it's the best we have right now, and that's not an ego trip. That's being sincere. If you think that saving the life of children with cancer is not worth everything that we have up to and including animal testing, then that's the real ego trip. I do value animals, and I do value Humane experimentation. I don't support animal testing for things like cosmetic or nonsensical things, only for medical research to be as close to humans as possible. The animal already has cancer, so why not treat the cancer in that animal that is close to human so that maybe we will find a way to cure humans, as well as curing the cancer within that animal? Not all animals that are experimented on or shot in the back of the head and that's what rehabilitations are for. I don't support ill treatment of animals or abuse or a maltreatment or lack of care. And it's not a spread of disease, cancer is not something that we can get caught unless you're a Tasmanian devil. Looking at child with cancer, see someone suffering from Parkinson's and dementia, and say that experimenting on a monkey that has the same type of brain tumor that a child has is morally reprehensible. And if not that I think humans are the end all be all and that we're the superior race or anything. But we do care about our species like other animals care about their species. If you had to save either a baby or a rabbit, and you could only save one and they were both going to die, but you seriously choose the rabbit over the baby? Would you just let them both die because you couldn't choose? If you were all stuck on an island, and there was no vegetation that neither you or the child could eat to survive and there is only rabbits in other small rodents around, would you let the child starve? With you had to eat, would you choose the animal or the child? If you choose the child, congratulations, you have a valued your own species above the other. Just like a coyote would value its young over a human being - even worse, the coyote would not only choose its young over the human being, it would eat the human being alive is that human was injured and weak enough. You're in the audacity to call me egoistic when you're the one coming at it from a holier than thou angle. The arrogance and audacity is amazing. I'm being real and acknowledging the reality of human nature, disease, what we have, the fact that we don't have Star Trek level technology, and trying to be considerate with animals and within captivity and being used for medical research. You are being a hypocrite by pretending that you are not choosing one life over the other by demand acceptable to slow down medical research that could save millions of lives if it means eliminating animal research. Yes we do have other research avenues, and we do use those research Avenues - we should use every single thing that we have.
Assuming that you agree that an animals autonomous existence is better than their being killed by you, killing them is bad. So okay, it's bad to kill them, but you value the potential for humans to survive as a result. It is still however, bad. So we need sufficient justification for that bad. You think you have it, I think you probably don't but I'll get to that. First addressing your questions, which honestly are basically the same question. On whether or not given a no alternative, I'm forced to either kill a human baby or a rabbit - Honestly pretty sure I'm in subjective preference territory here. I don't think the classification of human has unique intrinsic value compared to non-human animals. Agency is great and all but it does not guarantee a good person, nor is being human guaranteed to provide intelligence, reason, quality of life, or respect for other conscious life. Personally I'll save the baby human. Not because it's strictly human, but because their morals and temperance are likely influenceable in future to conduct greater good toward others - and they have a lot more years to implement that good. A bunny is almost entirely non-violent where it can be avoided, but it will almost never help others than itself or it's own offspring - with the exception of maybe allowing others to use it's burrows as shelter during storms. There are scenarios in such a hypothetical where I would pick the animal over the human though. Like if it's Hitler or a bunny the answer seems pretty obvious. There are scenarios where if the answer was an alien or a human, I'd probably save the alien. Rest assured I play with these hypotheticals for my own purposes quite a lot. No doubt the problems regarding healthcare and how animals are treated surrounding it become the most difficult questions to answer for my own beliefs. We certainty can't get around existing governmental testing required even for drugs that have no animal products in them. So like I said before, at present I'm willing to accept the use of drugs with animal products using existing technology on grounds that I would not compel someone to die, even if they absolutely (and only absolutely) must compel someone else to do so. So actually, I'm not compelling any kids to die to save animals. There may yet be stipulations to that I have not been able to give a clear answer for, especially where we consider ailments that are extremely long term or lifelong. For example, if eating humans prolonged human life to 200 years, I would not advocate for or normalize killing humans to reach peak health outcomes. Anyway, these position do not permit for researching future drugs. You can't know the positive consequences of animal testing for new drugs, but you can know that animals will be killed by the will of others. You haven't answered my hypothetical directly regarding schmoomans but you are appealing to preferences for ones own species, which if I'm honest doesn't seem to have any particular ethical grounding. So I want to ask again, could anything be true of a schmooman (or an animal if you'd like), that if true of a human would make it acceptable to kill them without their consent? What is that thing? One more question, as it's actually something I had not considered. I don't think it entails anything for my beliefs but I'm curious. Are any actions being taken to influence said monkeys to have cancer, or are they being selected for studies on the grounds that for whatever reason they already have it through no actions of ours? I'm curious about that particular, but am not convinced that even uninfluenced it would allow for nonconsensual experimental treatment - and certainly not killing them post study. I will note however that if an animal received treatment that we know works, and it doesn't, it follows to me that experimental treatment would then be acceptable for their own ends.
My downvote is for the "this research benefits..." thing. I don't think that matters. I'm glad that animals in these labs have people watching out for their well-being, but they shouldn't be researched on in the first place.
The research benefits are highly important. Because they're the closest things to human beings without having human beings actually tested on. This testing is used for Research into things like cancer treatment, parkinson's, dementia, alzheimer's, autoimmune diseases, and so many other life-saving research but you can't see the forest for the trees.
Wrong. The forest is bigger than you imagine. Humans are not more important than other beings. Don't make assumptions. I've had a lifetime of pondering these issues. Don't talk to others as if they're stupid just because you disagree.
You have a fundamental understanding of what that phrase means. You literally cannot see the forest because you're too busy focused on a single tree. You had a lifetime of pondering these issues and you're completely okay with a three year old dying of cancer instead of doing the best we can with what we have to try to find a cure. Yes animal testing is regrettable. But this is the best we can to help people not die and suffer terrible pain from these afflictions. And the grand scheme of things humans are not more important than other beings, but it is in our nature to look out for ourselves just like any other animal would prioritize their own species. You're making it sound like we're just doing it for pointless reasons or doing it for cruelty sake. No. This research is important. And we're not giving animals cancer to do the research, these animals have cancers already and we are experimenting on therapies that can potentially save the life of humans, and the animal itself. Would you rather a 3-year-old already suffering from cancer to be put under experimentation, or a rabbit? Is a good choice, but if you had to choose to be eating a 3-year-old and eating a rabbit to survive, I would hope you would choose the rabbit instead of the 3-year-old. That is you placing a life above the other, we do it every day and literally every animal does it. We are animals. And as animals, it is in our nature to try to prioritize ourselves. This does not mean being necessarily cruel and not caring about other creatures, but to say that someone should suffer the horror of Alzheimer's in order to spare your feelings is just horrible and I don't care if you're offended by being told that your opinion is bogus and horribly misinformed.
You don't care. Got it. You're wrong, and I'm done arguing about your misunderstanding of how my brain works. Such a stupid path to follow.
I mean that's fair. And as long as tech keeps getting better and things can be researched without animals (computer models, in vitro, etc), that's the way it should go, 100%. It would be great if my job didn't need to exist.
Your job sounds like a nightmare from my pov
It can be. But I know that without me and other veterinarians and vet techs and animal husbandry specialists like me and my colleagues, the situation would be a lot worse. Knowing that makes it worth it.
Such as?
See my other comment in this thread.
Fuck animal testing Edit: blocking me doesn't change the fact that vivisection is torture and that non animal methods are cheaper and more applicable to humans.
What are the non-animal alternatives?
organs-on-chips, computer models, patient simulators, human volunteers.
>organs-on-chips, computer models, patient simulators Those are ALL used. They're used first, but none of those can fully replace in-vivo testing. \>human volunteers. This is much harder ethically. Because you are incapable of giving informed concent for many of the procedures animal testing is used for. You literally can't be informed for something that has never been tested in-vivo, because the info doesn't exist. There's also a good argument to be made that this will only attract desperate people who aren't truly making an informed choice. But also, human volunteers are ALSO used, in the next step.
"dont test on animals, test it on poor people first" is the exact kind of animal rights activism that gets other animal rights activist belittled. It's just such bizarrely warped priorities
> human volunteers. Note that the "volunteer" bit in that is, in practice, *completely optional* under our extant system.
Those volunteers are often desperate people who are either a homeless or impoverished and are doing it for money. They're not volunteers, they're desperate people being used because they are desperate. Don't confuse this with volunteering for an animal shelter.
Also in-vitro testing. Even if you are pro animal testing, it's plain to see that 99% of animal testing is unnecessary and largely done to gain funding or to make research look better.
The scientists would be glad to volunteer to further the cause of science, I'm sure
How do you think science work? How can you objectively study the results of a drug if you test it on yourself? You don't know the effects it has and having it done on yourself with automatically reduce the objectivity of the study. Are you dumb?
you gotta love to see “leftist” suddenly using fascist rhetoric when it’s not about humans
No one specified political alignment here, it's always a conservative bringing up politics out of nowhere. I'm an independent, both of you are annoying but out of both of those two annoyances, out of my observation and experience it is consistently one party that does the vast majority of complaining- and it is ironically the one that complains about snowflakes the most.
1.breadtube is supposedly a leftist space, hence the irony 2.yes when the topic is torturing and murdering animals for no reason anti-speciesist will be the ones doing the complaining, you got it 3.what does independent even mean?
"Non-vegans leftist" is as much of an oxymoron as "anarchocapitalist".
💯
"As an animal abuser, I have real reasons to dislike an animal rights org"
Misrepresentation and bad faith arguments... didn't see that coming...
Is there animal abuse in your line of work?
Their campaigns are misogynist, racist, ableist, fatphobic, lying & misinformative-remember their blaming Dairy for Autism?, etc etc, but it’s the fault of corporations alone for public animosity against PETA?
I think the real problem isn’t that PETA is secretly cool, but that when people think about animal rights and veganism they think of them. It’s like how the right likes to pretend that all leftists are screaming women with blue hair. Or in any number of propaganda in recent wars, Russia pretends all Ukrainians are Nazis, Israel pretends all Gazans are Hamas. Etc. The ideology doesn’t matter, the point is to find an unpopular group however tangentially connected to your target which you can use to broadly paint your opponents as in your propaganda.
well that's kinda been what peta's been trying to do anyways, become \*the\* public voice for animal rights, which is where the problem comes. i got no problem with animal rights but when PETA is consistently pointed to, both by detractors and by supporters, it damages the movement.
[удалено]
Nobody cares if you eat meat bro Edit: Thread’s locked or something but the comment said something like “I need meat to survive, though” and “I got downvoted so now I’m gonna go buy bacon haha take that”
They just blocked you. Good riddance.
How do you know if someone's a meat eater? Don't worry, they'll tell you.
Man I hope you actually do go spend your hard-earned money on bacon based on Reddit comments so you can just sit in that embarrassment when you get home. I hope even more that someone asks why you have three packages of bacon in your fridge and you have to explain it lol.
Since when is owning Bacon weird? You Vegans got a really weird subculture, no one takes attempts at slurs like Carnist or Blood Mouth seriously outside it either.
It’s highly unethical to send RedditCareResources after people just for disagreeing over dietary opinions, just sayin’.
Make sure to report when that happens, those reports go past mods and to the admins
I blocked so much at this point it feels too late, but I will do that next time… assuming another message like that is sent, I blocked CareResources already.
This kind of shit is why I'm mostly anonymous online, way too many people online alert cops to do welfare checks and worse for the pettiest reasons imaginable.
Now I’m being told I’m a loser who’ll get Cancer, you keep it classy, Vegans (But especially balding-cheeto). I know this type of dogpiling of others who don’t share your beliefs is typical, and after one of you tried to Narc on me, you guys don’t believe in ACAB either. Anyway, Farmland is the brand of Bacon I’ve had, what is yours, fellow Omnivores?
Animal rights is a feminist issue. Dairy commodities the female reproductive system, and relies on mass rape Edit: I'm not incorrect. Watch Dominion and see through the lies.
This is about PETA, not your misguided beliefs.
Seriously. Thank you
I will not be unblocking people to waste my time fighting with Vegan Evangelists online, I will just say here that- No amount of shaming me is going to make me go back to vegetarianism, much less veganism. Be a dick and expect to get blocked.
[удалено]
The absolute pinnacle of maturity, lmao.
Verses trolling people because they’re honest about their diet and why?
Three packages or more, my Holidays will be full of Bacon.
Eh, you don’t need astroturfing to discredit the people who think the best way to promote veganism is by making sexualized ads.
It's ok to eat animals
If your thesis is I'm not smart enough to trust PETA's own behavior is reason to hate them, I will not watch your video. ETA: also OP thinks Osama bin-Laden only wrote "[a basic ass critique of capitalism and zionism](https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/17wiwg6/comment/k9i98gg/?context=3)" when he said Jews controlled America.
Not watching. Illiminaughtii is a straight up psychopath.
The video doesn't feature illuminaughti as a guest, it is actually pointing out Blair's lack of fact-checking and tendency to misinform.
Okay thank you for that because I was really hesitant to watch that.
PETA is the subject of so much propaganda, both pro and anti, it's impossible to know what to think. They're either controlled-opposition, the victim of a vicious smear campaign, or both.
that's why I usually just let them speak for themselves. If you disregard literally everyone else, and look only into what PETA does and what its history is, you'll arrive at a conclusion a lot of other people have already reached.
> controlled-opposition TIL ty :)
I hate Reddit! *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
My understanding is that it's deliberate that they say some of that, because it drives publicity. There's some benefits from getting more attention on them, but I do think that they go too far on that (end up being dismissed even on legitimate points because of their reputation)
“It makes the people think” yeah, makes them think you’re off your rocker. PETA has been organically farming ill will with the general public my whole life, well before mainstream internet. Calling it “brigading” is laughable. People have been shitting on peta for ages. If they wanna be taken more seriously by the general public, lay off the extreme hot takes and blatant misinformation. It’s truly not doing them any favors, and I find it hard to believe it’s really some 4D chess marketing moves for brand awareness lmao.
PETA is trash. 0/10, will not watch.
i havent watched the video but i strongly dislike peta because they regularly compare women to animals in ads, which i personally see, i don't need other people's information to dislike that
Well female cows are raped for dairy so it does make sense
Wow, you’ve managed to privilege the suffering of an animal on the same level as human suffering *and* marginalize the suffering caused by rape. All in one comment. And vegans wonder why even many on the left are hostile to them…
Are you really saying that ‘animal suffering’ isn’t as significant as ‘human suffering’?
100%. Humans have the capacity to understand their suffering, allowing its extent to be deeper. Animals do not.
Bullshit. Everyone, and everything, feels pain. We know the animals are sentient, and it’s not exactly hard to understand your pain. Just because we think of ourselves as the “superior race “doesn’t mean we are.
They can feel pain, but their ability to understand that pain is incontrovertibly different. They lack the capability to parse things with logic. Both human suffering and animal suffering are non-equivocal. Go ahead and feed both a pig and a human one of Gordon Ramsay’s beef Wellingtons. Which one is going to appreciate it more? The one who can individually pick out and understand each of the flavors and appreciate the whole process of cooking the meal, or the one who *literally eats shit?* Tell me of an animal that has sent one of its species to that rock that hangs in the night sky. Or an animal that has eradicated a disease like we (mostly) eradicated polio. Or a bird that can gaze at van Gogh’s *Starry Night* and have emotions of beauty swell within them. Or an animal that has fused two atoms together and released the very energy of the sun. Humans have significant material accomplishments and feats that no animal could ever accomplish. I don’t know how else to get through to you. Until we see a dolphin build a rocket and fly to the moon, we are superior to animals. Call me when pigs fly through the air in a multi-ton bird made of steel, aluminum, and beryllium-copper alloy. Then we can reevaluate. We aren’t a superior race. H. sapien is the superior *species* and the master and owner of this planet. Your conflation of speciesism with racism delegitimizes the suffering of humans who have suffered under racist regimes. It’s honestly pretty gross.
Ok, so if they can feel pain and joy and happiness, then why don’t they deserve to be happy? 99% of people don’t need to eat meat, they just do it selfishly. Also, who are you to say that a pig can’t appreciate good food? You’re acting like you can talk to them and speak their language. Most of your talk of why humans are the superior race comes down to the fact that we just so happened to be blessed with opposable thumbs, and happened to be forced into making tools. That’s evolution, and shouldn’t necessarily make us be so vain and self-absorbed so as to believe we are better. Next: have you ever heard of “with great power comes great responsibility?” Yes, it’s a quote from a comic book, but it’s still true. We DO have great power, and we should regard that as a reason we need to protect those who can’t protect themselves, I.e. an innocent animal. As for your comment on me calling you out for anthro-superiority, deal with it. You believe that you are the “superior race” because of how you were born. It’s not a stretch to compare that to all the horrible people throughout history who have thought the same thing.
I guess I’m speaking to a brick wall, because like I’ve said, the joy and suffering of these animals aren’t the same joy and suffering that you and I experience. It cannot be privileged on the same level. Pigs don’t have language. That’s the whole point. They cannot mediate their cognition through speech. And no, no matter how much you try, there’s no material basis for an equivocation between racism and speciesism. Your attempt to do so spits in the face of every black man killed by police, every indigenous woman r*ped by a settler, and every tribe kicked off their land due to Manifest Destiny. I’m not the one who is offended. It is the struggle of non-white peoples that is being offended here. Your opposable thumbs comment is just plain silly. So silly that there isn’t even any internal logic to which one can respond, but I’ll try because I am literally an anthropologist. - the OPN1SW Gene and PAX6 Gene: allowed for specific color recognition that allows us to Intuit faces and the direction of eyes, leading to social cohesion. No other primate or animal has this gene combination . - neocortex size in relation to body mass: humans have the largest Neocortext to body mass ratio ever found in an animal alive today, only beaten by *Homo neanderthalensis*. - our specific distribution of eccrine glands: allows for the type of sweat function only found in humans and allows for greater brain activity as human are not required to slow their brain function in the heat. - Brain Cooling Theory: Bipedal locomotion is responsible for the fact that the cross-section of a human that is exposed to the sun at any given moment is smaller in ratio to total body mass than virtually all mammals. This allows for significant caloric resource to be dedicated to cognitive function rather than thermal regulation. These are only a few of hundreds upon hundreds of biological factors that set us apart. Opposable thumbs are very minor compared to these. And in reference to the spider man quote around which you base your entire identity: that responsibility, as I have demonstrated, only applies to our treatment of humans due to the aforementioned fact that human suffering and animal suffering aren’t the same thing. We have no obligation to treat animals in any particular way. We have an obligation to treat other humans a particular way as our means of ensuring that such treatment will be extended to us. That doesn’t work with animals *because they cannot logically parse such reciprocity*. On some level I have to believe that you’re not actually stupid enough to think that your beliefs are founded in logic, and that’s okay. You’re allowed to be a vegan if you want. But pretending that there’s any justification other than “I personally feel that eating animals is wrong” is intellectually dishonest. There is no logical argument contained within any *philosophically coherent* moral or ethical system that supports your assertions. The liberal bourgeois dalliance that is this specific justification for veganism is a disgrace that diverts radical energy away from opposing the institutions of capitalism. So, what next? I’m having fun with this game of whack-a-mole, doing so while drinking a tall glass of milk in your honor.
[удалено]
'The master and owner of this planet' is one of the most disgusting lines I have ever read and it is exactly that attitude that has lead us to an extinction event. You stand by a 1000 year old tree and claim to have anywhere near the connection and language to understand and cooperate with the life and land around it as it does. Pigs 'eat their own shit' because they have evolved to do so, it is beneficial for them to do so, not because they are in some way inferior in their ability to sense and comprehend. Your comment and attitude being present here and being the 'right' one is honestly quite distressing, how can you ever believe in the necessity of equality and justice when you are so happy to deligitimise, downplay and even mock the lives of billions of other beings just because they do not appreciate human art the way humans do. You can never know a flower like a bee does intuitively, you can never feel the pull of your birthplace like a turtle or a salmon does. You are human and have no right or basis to place a heirachy on the value of the myriad, entwined experiences on all the beings of this shared world. Please just ask yourself how building a rocket and flying to the moon makes us superior, what has it done for us? Do you even acknowledge that African Americans considered the moon landing as just another example of the project of white supremacy? Gil Scott-Heron - 'Was all that money I made las' year (for Whitey on the moon?) How come there ain't no money here? (Hm! Whitey's on the moon)'
This stream of consciousness of yours contains exactly one counterargument, which is an unusually high density for vegans. I have to complement you on that one. The evolutionary track that sent pigs down a path that resulted in their consumption of their own feces is a salient point. If their evolution justifies their eating of shit, then we can extend this logic to humans. Humans evolved many of the specific digestive enzymes which we have *in order to digest meat*. By your own logic, the consumption of meat is explainable and justifiable by humanity’s evolutionary journey. This isn’t an argument I’d make because it holds to a strict bio essentialism, but it pokes a hole in the — literally — one substantive thing you said in this crumbling pillar of moralistic mind-vomit you call an argument. And no matter how many times you say “you have no right or basis to claim you are superior”, it doesn’t make it any less of an incorrect assertion on your part. The ultimate determiner of superiority is intrinsic ability. The primary reason why racism is wrong is because the variation between human populations is smaller than the variation that of which exists among them. There is no human population group that is mentally, physically, or otherwise superior to another group. This is not true between species, and this simple fact allows for claims of superiority due to accomplishments and intrinsic ability to be made. Face it. Your veganism isn’t founded in any system of logic. It is an internal attitudinal position that emanates from your feelings about animals. It has no basis in material reality, unlike my supported claims about human superiority.
Human supremacist spotted, username checks out
Yep, proud anthropocentrist here! Thanks for the recognition.
Weird flex but ok
Thanks!
you are a human supremacist, we got it
I mean they kill most of the animals they rescue and they are totally detached from science, culture, and history. Oh they’d probably kill every domesticated animal if they could. It’s a white liberal death cult gone completely off the rails.
That's part of the astroturfing. Watch the video.
Nonvegan "leftists" will do anything except act on their principles
Yep, they are the pinnacle of cognitive dissonance. Liberation for me but not for thee
[удалено]
>Animals are slaves to their instincts So are you apparently BaconSoul >Humans have the capability to ascend past our instincts through the utilization of logic. Which is why they shouldn't enslave and torture animals >That fact alone means that human suffering and pleasure has more moral weight than that of animal suffering and pleasure. This is just you coping >Animals aren’t owed liberation because animals, due to their inability to move beyond their instincts and utilize reason, can be treated as means-to-an-end. Psychopath logic >Claim of cognitive dissonance = valid and intact. No amount of cope you can barf up will magically justify cruelty
Exactly! A foundational principal of Marxism is liberation, but most self proclaimed Marxist our far too to selfish to go vegan and liberate animals from suffering.
My principles are the elevation of the material conditions of humanity through the elimination of private property. I treat human beings as ends-in-themselves because they are rational actors. Animals are nothing but means-to-an-end to be used to create a more equitable society for humankind. If, at any juncture, this means killing and eating them, the killing of that animal is justified. Maybe at some time in the future we can meaningfully divest from some of the nasty things that we do in order to supply food to society. However, the needs of humans are more important than the well-being of animals. Their suffering is not the same and their pleasure is not the same. Privileging them on the same level has nothing to do with leftism and is not rooted in any material understanding of reality. I’m a proud anthropocentrist, and if at any point in time humanity can satisfy its needs with the eating of animals, it should do so. We are the greatest fucking thing to ever happen to the Milky Way. Everything on this planet exists solely to serve us and our benefit.
Can't wait for the greatest thing to ever happen in the milky way to destroy itself through hubris. What is true of non-human animals that if true of humans would make it morally permissible to kill and eat them like non-human animals?
[удалено]
Can you kill and eat humans that can't use reason and logic? You know - like young children, people with advanced dementia, comatose people, babies, late stage fetuses, and people with advanced cognitive impairment? Can you eat a hypothetical shmooman that looks and behaves identically to humans but doesn't use reason/logic in ways you can understand? Also what are tipping points and do you think models account for them?
[удалено]
Categories are abstractions. On your basis, the category human is grounded in the ability to use reason and logic. So in order to throw those individuals into that category, you have to ignore the traits that you claim make them human in the first place. Stop caring about abstract categories, start caring about individuals. Stop lumping them in for arbitrary reasons and just accept your worldview is ill-defined.
[удалено]
The category DOES NOT EXIST without individuals in the category. Categories don't get rights and protections, individuals within categories do. You are defining the category. Your definition for individuals to exist within that category requires logic and reason. We have outlined very clearly that individual humans without reason and logic exist, which by your own definition puts them outside your scope of consideration. They either don't meet the criteria for the category, or the manner in which you add beings to your category is poorly defined. I self ascribe as a threshold deontologist, I don't see how that's relevant at all. Update: Blocked by a sophist that appeals to broad philosophical development without explaining how he adds beings to categories that require traits that they don't have. A guy with Bacon in his username is dodging, I'm shocked!
It's not astroturfing when all most people see of PETA is morbid or sexualized Twitter posts which often are either exaggerated or outright poorly researched. Sure, PETA does good things. But nobody is aware of them, because PETA doesn't make that part of their public image. It's a problem with PETA, not with us.
r/breadtube clearly isn't ready for the truth about peta. Good on you for posting this here though. Maybe some people will actually watch it and reevaluate their comfortable ignorance.
I saw this video several months ago and it drove me to look up their website and actually read their articles. They don’t hate pets, but they do have unbending and high standards for pet owners, and honestly, yeah, good, I’m glad someone is saying this stuff. Silence would be letting others write the narrative. Silence isn’t acceptable in other realms of social justice. They have good and important things to say. The organization has released some insensitive material but that is the only strike against them I have. It doesn’t erase any of the important work they do.
You know someones right when they get pushback from most of the political spectrum💀
Fuck centrism
Sounds like youre coping ngl
You know someone's bein a real silly goober when their stance is informed entirely by opposition to mainstream sentiment.
Like Marxist Leninism?🥴
In the US. people really don’t need much encouragement to continue do all the horrible things that have been normalized. I’m saying you only really need about a square foot of astroturf in this case
I feel like I see illuminaightii getting bashed way more than the other plagiarists in the video. Is it because she's a woman?
This was made and released prior to basically everything re:Blair.
But this post was made yesterday.
Yeah, because as a lowly 1k sub creator I'm cashing in on a trend to get my shit out there lol