Human Rights v Animal Rights

[DCgull]

Caz, I quite agree. I was merely responding in kind to the
'Would you care to give any back up to your assertions such as validated scientific studies or do you just belong to the "science bad, fluffly bunnies nice" brigade?'

In retrospect, I shouldn't. I apologise.

I would, however, like an answer to the points I made without recourse to faulty inductive logic.

 

[Dandyman]

Animal research was used in developing all of the following:

- Antibiotics for the treatment of bacterial infections
- Vacicines for smallox, tetanus, diptheria, polio, measles, lyme disease, hepatitis B and chicken pox.
- Gene therapy
- Insulin to control diabetes
- Anti-coagulents
- Chemotherapy for cancer patients
- Use of AZT to prevent HIV transmission from mother to child
- Development of monoclonal antibodies for treating disease
- Cyclosporin and other anit-rejection drugs
- Bone marrow transplantation.

It has also been used in the development of the following treatments for animals:

- Vaccine for feline leukemia
- The use of in vitro fertilisation procedures to preserve endangered species
- Treatment for parasites
- prevention of heartworm
- Immunisation against distemper, rabies, parvo virus, infectious hepatitis, anthrax and tetanus.


next...

 

[DCgull]

Animal research was used in developing all of the following:

- Antibiotics for the treatment of bacterial infections
- Vacicines for smallox, tetanus, diptheria, polio, measles, lyme disease, hepatitis B and chicken pox.
- Gene therapy
- Insulin to control diabetes
- Anti-coagulents
- Chemotherapy for cancer patients
- Use of AZT to prevent HIV transmission from mother to child
- Development of monoclonal antibodies for treating disease
- Cyclosporin and other anit-rejection drugs
- Bone marrow transplantation.

It has also been used in the development of the following treatments for animals:

- Vaccine for feline leukemia
- The use of in vitro fertilisation procedures to preserve endangered species
- Treatment for parasites
- prevention of heartworm
- Immunisation against distemper, rabies, parvo virus, infectious hepatitis, anthrax and tetanus.
next...

The clue is in your statement: 'Animal research was USED in developing all of the following'
What I am after is PROOF that this contributed to it. An awful lot of other things were used: water, glassware, general laboratory equipment, computers, and so on. Again I state, it is the controversial nature of vivisection which makes people mark it out for special attention.
(I hope you don't take offence, as none is meant) but you are using faulty inductive logic. You claim that vivisection has worked in the past and that appears to be the basis on which you argue it will work in the future. I dispute the notion that it has worked in the past (for reasons already stated) and accummulating lots of examples where you claim that vivisection was somehow essential merely begs the question.

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

The clue is in your statement: 'Animal research was USED in developing all of the following'
What I am after is PROOF that this contributed to it. An awful lot of other things were used: water, glassware, general laboratory equipment, computers, and so on. Again I state, it is the controversial nature of vivisection which makes people mark it out for special attention.
(I hope you don't take offence, as none is meant) but you are using faulty inductive logic. You claim that vivisection has worked in the past and that appears to be the basis on which you argue it will work in the future. I dispute the notion that it has worked in the past (for reasons already stated) and accummulating lots of examples where you claim that vivisection was somehow essential merely begs the question.

I think you are obfuscating the question and looking into the semantics of how replies are being given. If you want the proof, then you would need to drag out case studies from the Lancet, and server space (plus copyright laws) preclude that. Many of the larger medical companies would be only too happy to discuss the exact details of how animal-related research has been used to develop and refine their products (or at least they would if they hadn't been hounded out of the public relations arena by the more extreme animal-rights brigade - they are now very wary of releasing anything which may be traced back to an individual for fear of repercussions.

Prime time berk on 5Live this morning - "I am not an animal rights terrorist. Well, I have served time for storing incendiary devices, but they weren't mine, I was only looking after them for someone else!" His whole argument disappeared in one simple slip of the tongue.

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

And how did your PhD on Animal Ethics go, DC?

 

[Dandyman]

The clue is in your statement: 'Animal research was USED in developing all of the following'
What I am after is PROOF that this contributed to it. An awful lot of other things were used: water, glassware, general laboratory equipment, computers, and so on. Again I state, it is the controversial nature of vivisection which makes people mark it out for special attention.
(I hope you don't take offence, as none is meant) but you are using faulty inductive logic. You claim that vivisection has worked in the past and that appears to be the basis on which you argue it will work in the future. I dispute the notion that it has worked in the past (for reasons already stated) and accummulating lots of examples where you claim that vivisection was somehow essential merely begs the question.

I do not take offence. Indeed I am happy that the debate is about whether the science is valid rather than about moral abstracts.

I am claiming that animal research was used in the examples quoted and that published papers are available to back up the claim. The counter claim it seems to me has to be that the evidence gained in those experiments was irrelevant to the resulting scientific discoveries, whcih begs the question of how the researchers did then reach their conclusions.

I fully accept that there may be other parts of the jigsaw that do not make use of animals but all the evidence available to me still convinces me that the breakthroughs would not have occurred had the results of animal experiments not existed.

As an aside are you using the word "vivisection" to mean dissection of or just the use of living animals ?

 

[Pavilionaire]

All animal testing is wrong. Anyone fancy a burger?

 

[DCgull]

I think you are obfuscating the question and looking into the semantics of how replies are being given. If you want the proof, then you would need to drag out case studies from the Lancet, and server space (plus copyright laws) preclude that. Many of the larger medical companies would be only too happy to discuss the exact details of how animal-related research has been used to develop and refine their products (or at least they would if they hadn't been hounded out of the public relations arena by the more extreme animal-rights brigade - they are now very wary of releasing anything which may be traced back to an individual for fear of repercussions.

Prime time berk on 5Live this morning - "I am not an animal rights terrorist. Well, I have served time for storing incendiary devices, but they weren't mine, I was only looking after them for someone else!" His whole argument disappeared in one simple slip of the tongue.

Firstly, how can asking for proof of an assertion be obfuscating the question? I ask yet again for proof that animal research is so vital for medical research. The establishment claim that medical research is impossible without vivisection (or a variant thereof). Prove it! They made the assertion so they should back it up. As I said before, inductive logic merely begs the question.
Finally, Prime time berk on 5Live this morning is just that: a berk. Your point?

 

[DCgull]

And how did your PhD on Animal Ethics go, DC?

Interesting that you should ask. I'm just over halfway through. It appears to be taking forever.

 

[DCgull]

As an aside are you using the word "vivisection" to mean dissection of or just the use of living animals ?

You've got me on that! Etymologically speaking it is inexact but I take vivisection and animal experimentation to be synonyms as per common usage.

 

[zefarelly]

that f***ing twat on telly last night prattling on about concentration camps . .wanker, distracted me from my massive steak, by the time I got back onto it it was overdone

test animals and people for medicine, its in everyones interests, but its not necessary for cosmetics, people will do fine, leave the animals out of it, apart from the ones from Dartford and Chatham.

we got my mates dog stoned once . . .does that count as animal testing, it was very funny

 

[Dandyman]

You've got me on that! Etymologically speaking it is inexact but I take vivisection and animal experimentation to be synonyms as per common usage.

Part of the reason I ask is that I am aware than some animal rights activists take the view that we have no right to use animals in any way, shape or form. Others may, of course, only object to what they perceive as cruelty but not have an objection per se to the use of animals to aid human society.

 

[DCgull]

Part of the reason I ask is that I am aware than some animal rights activists take the view that we have no right to use animals in any way, shape or form. Others may, of course, only object to what they perceive as cruelty but not have an objection per se to the use of animals to aid human society.

Personally, I don't want to be (ab)used by someone else in ways that are in their interest and not mine. Can't see any reason in logic why I should inflict similar on someone else...

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

Firstly, how can asking for proof of an assertion be obfuscating the question? I ask yet again for proof that animal research is so vital for medical research. The establishment claim that medical research is impossible without vivisection (or a variant thereof). Prove it! They made the assertion so they should back it up. As I said before, inductive logic merely begs the question.
Finally, Prime time berk on 5Live this morning is just that: a berk. Your point?

What proof can we possibly post up here? Refer to page 2 and Dandyman's post for some references that you could start with regarding myths/facts to do with animal testing and the results that can be achieved. You are studying for the PhD, you must have researched/been given proof for all sides of the argument, therefore you probably have all the proof you need.

My point about the berk on 5 Live was simply that he was a berk - why does an anti-animal cruelty organisation (forgotten their name, Shout, Stroke or something) supply a spokesperson who has a criminal record for violence when trying to put across a point about non-violent demonstrations?

And why is the spokesperson for the British Union Against Vivisection an Italian?

 

[London Calling]

What proof can we possibly post up here? Refer to page 2 and Dandyman's post for some references that you could start with regarding myths/facts to do with animal testing and the results that can be achieved. You are studying for the PhD, you must have researched/been given proof for all sides of the argument, therefore you probably have all the proof you need.

My point about the berk on 5 Live was simply that he was a berk - why does an anti-animal cruelty organisation (forgotten their name, Shout, Stroke or something) supply a spokesperson who has a criminal record for violence when trying to put across a point about non-violent demonstrations?

And why is the spokesperson for the British Union Against Vivisection an Italian?

Why is our Royal Family German?

I put my cards on the table. I do not agree with Animal experiments, once upon a time, I had the time to read and assess the pro's and cons. Now I don't have that time.

I know the dandy man but I know if I cut and paste the buav stuff it would have an agrument or a point against all of his points.

How are we with less limited information than the main protangist, know how much of that information is 100% truth and fact?

Morally I don't agree with animal experiments and I don't value animal life above human life, I don't see the need for animal experiments in the C21st century and with nearly all respected medical researchers doubting animal research and favour cell and computer simulation. I side with these people.

You will also find that the researchers who support animal testing have a contract to such work, so they would say that!

LC

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Talk Talk's anti-vivisection classic 'It's My Life'(or 'No Doubt's' for the younger pop pickers out there), sung from a laboratory animal's perspective usually brings a tear to CM's eye (well the Talk Talk version anyways):

It's my life
Don't you forget
It's my life
It never ends
Funny how I blind myself
I never knew
If I was sometimes played upon
Afraid to lose
I would tell myself what good you do
Convince myself
It's my life
Don't you forget
It's my life
It never ends.....

 

[DCgull]

What proof can we possibly post up here? Refer to page 2 and Dandyman's post for some references that you could start with regarding myths/facts to do with animal testing and the results that can be achieved. You are studying for the PhD, you must have researched/been given proof for all sides of the argument, therefore you probably have all the proof you need.

My point about the berk on 5 Live was simply that he was a berk - why does an anti-animal cruelty organisation (forgotten their name, Shout, Stroke or something) supply a spokesperson who has a criminal record for violence when trying to put across a point about non-violent demonstrations?

And why is the spokesperson for the British Union Against Vivisection an Italian?

Hants: I have read the propaganda from both sides. One can have the 'he said, she said' argument but it is not productive. I prefer to expose the arguments to logic and look beyond the hyperbole (I would hasten to add that I am not suggesting others haven't done likewise and reached different conclusions). I have looked at the pro- side and they rely upon the inductive argument which is not convincing. My doctorate is not directly concerned with vivisection but I am interested, indirectly, with epistemic questions generally.

The reason that SPEAC (possibly) used that person is that most AR groups haven't got a clue about public relations: simple as...

Why shouldn't he be Italian? He's got a great deal of experience.

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

Hants: I have read the propaganda from both sides. One can have the 'he said, she said' argument but it is not productive. I prefer to expose the arguments to logic and look beyond the hyperbole (I would hasten to add that I am not suggesting others haven't done likewise and reached different conclusions). I have looked at the pro- side and they rely upon the inductive argument which is not convincing. My doctorate is not directly concerned with vivisection but I am interested, indirectly, with epistemic questions generally.

The reason that SPEAC (possibly) used that person is that most AR groups haven't got a clue about public relations: simple as...

Why shouldn't he be Italian? He's got a great deal of experience.

If you want/need to get past the propaganda, then you are into the realms of clinical trials and datasheeting which would mean very little to most of us. I don't think you can make a true judgement call on the morality of the subject unless you have a very firm grasp of the clinical/scientific arguments - I don't have enough of a grasp of that, it's not my area. My only experience of animal conditions has been working in abbatoirs where without exception the conditions have been as humane as possible, and as casual labour when I was much younger on turkey and chicken farms, where they couldn't even spell humane. I was also an emergency slaughterman for the government recently, and that was also far from humane.

With regard to medical benefits, or pros and cons, I have to defer to those that I trust to know better, much as I dislike letting someone else make a judgement call for me. I don't know whether they can use computer simulations to predict drug effects, but I believe that testing cosmetics on animals is pretty unjustifiable.

 

[London Irish]

agreed - and the student crusties from G8

Completely different set of people, but, hey, let your Daily Mail prejudices run free in the wild.

 

[London Irish]

Good level of debate from Dandyman and DCGull here - thanks, an interesting read