Animal Rights Groups blocks importing of test animals

[Straha]

You realize why those tests have to be double-blind, right? It's to test a null hypothesis and also to minimize/eliminate bias to help prevent potentially bad drugs from reaching the market. It is the exact opposite of useless death.

I am saying that the deaths caused by the way these double-blind studies are conducted are horrific and should be stopped, or at the least reformed. What I am saying is that the information gained from animal death #1,826 as compared to animal death #5 is so insignificant as to make the former's useless. What the advocate from PETA is saying in the OP is that there are plenty of opportunities for reforming this system to eliminate these excess deaths while still producing viable medical data.

The Sikhs have long had this division and have yet to start a campaign of genocide.

You've missed the forest for a tree. I am saying this system of division and classification is what enables genocide, and a whole slate of other horrific crimes. Your response that one group hasn't done this sort of thing kind of misses the boat.

Out of curiosity, are you as anti-abortion as you are against animal testing and eating meat? After all, the product of conception shouldn't be separated as a non-protected, non-moral class with less stake as "humanity" because they are lesser creatures. To condone abortion gives up the right to condemn Nazi death camps!

My feelings about abortion are multi-variate and complicated. Ideally, yes, I am against abortion and think it should never have to happen (as I think we all are, or ought to be.) In practice the complication is that there are multiple systems of oppression that force minority and underprivileged groups to seek out abortion and to oppose abortion without first fighting the systems that make abortion necessary is both asinine and counter-productive.

I'll deal with the rest of your questions later because, although worth answering, they aren't germane to the discussion at hand at the moment.

Back to the point, if a pack of rats were hungry, and you were locked in a room with them, do you think they're consider your rights as a living being, and refrain from eating you? If the rats were sentient, and were developing... say, a vaccine against the bubonic plague... do you think they'll consider your worth equal to one of theirs, and refrain from testing the potentially deadly vaccine on you, to make sure it wouldn't kill a rat?

So your answer for why we shouldn't consider the rat as an ethical creature is because you assume they wouldn't treat you as one? That's all sorts of stupid, shows a complete misunderstanding of basic ethics and morality, and is quite possibly the worst argument I have ever heard about why we should engage in slaughter of animals (and I've heard a lot of them.)

[Akhlut]

The Sikhs have long had this division and have yet to start a campaign of genocide.

You've missed the forest for a tree. I am saying this system of division and classification is what enables genocide, and a whole slate of other horrific crimes. Your response that one group hasn't done this sort of thing kind of misses the boat.

Death camps and genocide are linked more to inherent human tribalism rather than a philosophy that can exclude non-human animals from being considered morally equivalent to humans. While I'm sure you'll counter that such tribalism, in fact, enables humans to separate non-human animals from them, I'd argue that it is not a slippery slope to segregate humans and non-human animals, because the tribalism that enables humans to kill one another is likely of a different sort, mentally, than that used to segregate humans from non-human animals (which likely comes from an evolutionary perspective; while all humans anthropomorphize animals to an extent, we don't need to apply the same complex theories of mind to, say, a lion that we do with a stranger in trying to deduce how friendly, threatening, dangerous, and/or fraudulent an unknown person is in comparison to a kudu, lion, or dikdik). Thus, I'd argue that the sort of thinking that allowed for Nazis to throw millions of Jews, Roma, and Slavs into ovens is not the same sort of thinking that allows for a Papuan hunter-gatherer to spear a monkey in the heart.

Out of curiosity, are you as anti-abortion as you are against animal testing and eating meat? After all, the product of conception shouldn't be separated as a non-protected, non-moral class with less stake as "humanity" because they are lesser creatures. To condone abortion gives up the right to condemn Nazi death camps!

My feelings about abortion are multi-variate and complicated. Ideally, yes, I am against abortion and think it should never have to happen (as I think we all are, or ought to be.) In practice the complication is that there are multiple systems of oppression that force minority and underprivileged groups to seek out abortion and to oppose abortion without first fighting the systems that make abortion necessary is both asinine and counter-productive.

Why not do both, though? Why is allowing abortion to be available while fighting against a system of oppression LESS horrible than not allowing abortion AND fighting against systemic oppression? I'm sure you'd be against rape, regardless of whether or not it was as a direct result of oppression that was an outlet of the oppressed. So, why is abortion allowed when it is an outlet of the oppressed, when I'm sure you'd say that rape, murder, or other grievous crimes shouldn't be allowed? Why is a 14 week old fetus less deserving than a human who has lived outside a uterus, according to your moral philosophy which says that there should be no difference of moral value between the two? If you resort to utilitarianism as a back-up philosophy for the failures of your own, why shouldn't it be rejected wholesale for utilitarianism anyway?

[Straha]

That is completely false, because Jews are not rats.

Hear that whooshing sound? That the sound of the point flying over your head.

Let's restate this:
The reason why contemporary standards say that animal testing is acceptable is because animals have a lesser claim to moral protection than humans.
The Nazis and others (just about every 'developed' country) experimented on groups of "people" because they were perceived to be more animal than human and thus lacked the moral protection given towards humans.

My argument is for the second event to happen the first must precede it. Moreover if you believe the first statement to be true, then if groups like the Tuskegee doctors/Dr. Mengele/whoever legitimately believe their experimental populaces were/are sub-human based on scientific evidence available to them then you have lost the ethical ability to condemn them.

Also, you missed this:

And if animal testing = Nazi concentration camps and Dr. Mengele, then I surmise that eating hamburgers = cannibalism?

I didn't. I viewed it as self-evident from my other response.

It's not cannibalism, it's straight up murder, and my advocacy of ethical veganism is well-known on this board.

Except that the Nazis were clearly wrong about the Jews' mental capacities, as Jews have identical mental capabilities as other human beings. Mice, in contrast, clearly lack several distinct human/intellectually advanced animal capabilities (language, sense of mortality, theory of mind, etc.).

Yes, but the science available at the time was unequivocal in concluding the opposite way. Whatever our read of the situation is now my argument is more precise that you are losing the ability to condemn the Nazis for what they did in the camps. More troubling for me is that you also lose the ability to prevent society from rationally deciding that other groups of people ought, once again, be excluded from the moral community and become legitimate targets for slaughter once more.

Except that human races are very nearly identical to one another minus a few very basic differences (some genetic disorders, skin pigment, skull proportions, etc.), whereas meaningful differences are essentially not there (black people and white people have the same general capacities for abstract thought, theory of mind, and language).

You're missing the boat here.

So, again: are you anti-abortion, against the elimination of invasive species, and against spaying/neutering domestic animals?

Hell, you've said before that plants and microbes should be included in the moral calculus as well; so, by logical extension, you should be AGAINST the elimination of smallpox, vaccinations, and antibiotics. Why should Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections be treated aggressively, then, if we should extend moral consideration to individual bacteria as well as humans and all other life and things that have the ability to replicate? After all, you're killing off a great deal more individual bacteria (including those that are innocent and/or beneficial) when undergoing bacterial infection treatments. Why should self-preservation be a moral consideration, since any action that isn't self-harming can be said to be about self-preservation.

I believe we each have the right to ensure our continued existence. If I am attacked by a bacterial infection I have the same right to take whatever stance necessary to eliminate the disease from me, but no further. Just like if I am attacked by an axe murderer I have the right to engage in such force necessary to ensure my continued existence, but no further. I think that this is a really simple concept and I don't see how it's troubling you as much as it is.

Pseudoscience and racial rhetoric that even then went challenged, if not as much as it would be today. This doesn't really change my point, either - racism was denying the humanity of other people in spite of clear biological evidence of similarities. The fact that early twentieth century people either lacked that evidence (or more likely, simply ignored it) doesn't change that.

They didn't lack evidence of similarities or ignore it. They had thousands of doctors and reams and reams of studies showing all sorts of differences between 'races' and all sorts of discussions about the moral consequences of this. The conclusions were unequivocal: because non-white races were less capable than white races they should be accorded far less moral protection than white races, and could be easily lumped in with animals because they lacked all the necessary attributes of humanness.

If this conclusion bothers you then the next step is probably to widen your moral community to include animals, or at the very least engage in the moderate reforms the PETA spokesperson is asking for in the OP.

Moral considerations for human beings is useful in keeping human communities together, which in turns usually makes us all better off in terms of living standards and personal satisfaction.

Replace human with American/White/christian or whatever other denomination you so choose. The result is the same, the people on the inside are happier with higher standards of living and personal satisfaction because of their communal grouping. The statement you just made can be used anywhere, and was used by (amongst others) South Africans during apartheid.

It only seems inconsistent when you inter-relate people at the margin of the normal curve of human capabilities with members of other species. I think it's very easy to think, "These other beings are biological humans - it's good for us to save them" versus "these beings are another species that competes with us for ecological space - we can save them if we think it has merit, but we have no obligation to keep them alive and living in some form of natural or man-made ecosystem".

I don't inter-relate people people at the margins of humanity to animals. I say A. we're all animals, and B. that there's no way we can construct a moral community of "humans" without leaving the door open to future exclusion of massive parts of humanity. The only solution is the inclusion of all living beings inside a universal moral framework.

Universal systems tend to either turn into circular logic or bizarre non-consequentialist beliefs that open the door for all kinds of religious nonsense as well.

Consequentialist systems require arbitrary starting conditions that leave out massive populaces and ignore the horrific crimes committed against them. Consequentialist systems are bad. I'll take the bizarre over the horrific any day of the week.

[Sidewinder]

Back to the point, if a pack of rats were hungry, and you were locked in a room with them, do you think they're consider your rights as a living being, and refrain from eating you? If the rats were sentient, and were developing... say, a vaccine against the bubonic plague... do you think they'll consider your worth equal to one of theirs, and refrain from testing the potentially deadly vaccine on you, to make sure it wouldn't kill a rat?

Wow, what a great moral argument you made. I guess you'd be okay with sentencing a convicted rapist to be raped, huh?

No, the rapist should be castrated, to prevent him from ever raping again.

Or maybe torturing torturers?

Now we're on a slippery slope regarding "At which point does using 'enhanced interrogation techniques' on a suspected terrorist, becomes justifiable to prevent injury and deaths to others?"

Because if another entity is willing to do something to us, then that makes it magically acceptable for us to do it to them, right? Pay to mind to the fact that we are capable of a bit more ethical reasoning than rats are. That doesn't matter, does it? If a little kid kicks me in a temper tantrum, then I might as well kick him back, right? No, you fucktard.

You missed the important part of my argument, moron.

"Survival of the species" is an instinct that's genetically hardwired into ALL SPECIES OF ANIMAL. Rats are NOT the same species as human beings, and will NOT hesitate to sacrifice one of us, to save their own kind. And like it or not, human instincts make the majority of us share the same attitude towards other animals.

It's nice that we can consciously override such instincts, e.g., to protect endangered species such as lions, tigers, and bears- species that would, in its natural habitat, prey upon us- but in a survival situation? When the instinct towards SELF-PRESERVATION begins to dominate our conscious and subconscious thoughts?

There are multiple cases of animals resorting to CANNIBALISM when faced with starvation- human beings are no exception. If you were starving, and forced to choose between eating another human being to stay alive, and eating a rat, would you really choose eating a human being over eating Mr. Rat?

As distasteful as it seems, use of laboratory animals to test medicines, is the same situation writ large- we're choosing to sacrifice a member of another species, to preserve a member of OURS.

[Lord Zentei]

That is completely false, because Jews are not rats.

Hear that whooshing sound? That the sound of the point flying over your head.

Let's restate this:
The reason why contemporary standards say that animal testing is acceptable is because animals have a lesser claim to moral protection than humans.
The Nazis and others (just about every 'developed' country) experimented on groups of "people" because they were perceived to be more animal than human and thus lacked the moral protection given towards humans.

My argument is for the second event to happen the first must precede it. Moreover if you believe the first statement to be true, then if groups like the Tuskegee doctors/Dr. Mengele/whoever legitimately believe their experimental populaces were/are sub-human based on scientific evidence available to them then you have lost the ethical ability to condemn them.

No, I got the point all right, it's just that your point is bullshit. There is no logical connection between experimenting on animals and experimenting on humans. Moreover, the Nazis went an fucking exterminated people by the millions. The fact that they claimed to believe that the Jews were animals did not lead to that conclusion, neither did it lead to Mengele's bullshit.

Also, you missed this:

And if animal testing = Nazi concentration camps and Dr. Mengele, then I surmise that eating hamburgers = cannibalism?

I didn't. I viewed it as self-evident from my other response.

It's not cannibalism, it's straight up murder, and my advocacy of ethical veganism is well-known on this board.

Well at least you're consistent in your bullshit, I'll grant that.

[Straha]

\No, I got the point all right, it's just that your point is bullshit. There is no logical connection between experimenting on animals and experimenting on humans. Moreover, the Nazis went an fucking exterminated people by the millions. The fact that they claimed to believe that the Jews were animals did not lead to that conclusion, neither did it lead to Mengele's bullshit.

My word you are beyond dense.
For the Nazis experimenting on the Jews was no different then experimenting on animals because they were animals. This is not convoluted, it is not difficult to comprehend, and it is not circuitous. The moral categories you create and apply constantly shift who they include and exclude, allowing for the blanket experimentation on sub-human beings without moral opprobrium means that you can't condemn Dr. Mengele because his subjects were just as much 'animal' as a rat.

The Nazis didn't claim to believe that Jews were animals, they did believe it. They believed it whole heartily, and they believed it with thousands of doctors and all the weight of contemporary science. Going by our rationale for experimenting on animals they're in the clear. The only way you can condemn them is if you believe there is a higher standard to which we must judge our actions when it comes to human inter-relations that comes before subjective interpretation of objective fact. Put another way, unless you have a metaphysical/spiritual reason for blanket human exceptionalism the Nazis were justified in what they did.

Finally, you never answer the question which comes before your stance: Why do humans deserve moral protection? Why can't a group of scientists kidnap you for experimental drug testing if they know the results might be for the betterment of mankind?

[someone_else]

You realize why those tests have to be double-blind, right? It's to test a null hypothesis and also to minimize/eliminate bias to help prevent potentially bad drugs from reaching the market. It is the exact opposite of useless death.

I am saying that the deaths caused by the way these double-blind studies are conducted are horrific and should be stopped, or at the least reformed. What I am saying is that the information gained from animal death #1,826 as compared to animal death #5 is so insignificant as to make the former's useless. What the advocate from PETA is saying in the OP is that there are plenty of opportunities for reforming this system to eliminate these excess deaths while still producing viable medical data.

Since you don't seem to understand the most basic rules of how an experiment must be done to be of any real use (the more subjects the better, you need fucking control subjects to ensure shit hasn't happened on its own ruining the results and rendering futile all the animal deaths till then), I think you cannot really tell what is "horrific and should be stopped".

[Lord Zentei]

\No, I got the point all right, it's just that your point is bullshit. There is no logical connection between experimenting on animals and experimenting on humans. Moreover, the Nazis went an fucking exterminated people by the millions. The fact that they claimed to believe that the Jews were animals did not lead to that conclusion, neither did it lead to Mengele's bullshit.

My word you are beyond dense.
For the Nazis experimenting on the Jews was no different then experimenting on animals because they were animals. This is not convoluted, it is not difficult to comprehend, and it is not circuitous. The moral categories you create and apply constantly shift who they include and exclude, allowing for the blanket experimentation on sub-human beings without moral opprobrium means that you can't condemn Dr. Mengele because his subjects were just as much 'animal' as a rat.

The dense one here is you, because you have not made that logical connection beyond your own say so.

The Nazis didn't claim to believe that Jews were animals, they did believe it. They believed it whole heartily, and they believed it with thousands of doctors and all the weight of contemporary science. Going by our rationale for experimenting on animals they're in the clear. The only way you can condemn them is if you believe there is a higher standard to which we must judge our actions when it comes to human inter-relations that comes before subjective interpretation of objective fact. Put another way, unless you have a metaphysical/spiritual reason for blanket human exceptionalism the Nazis were justified in what they did.

When they said that "we decide who is Jewish". Right.

Your stance sickens me.

Finally, you never answer the question which comes before your stance: Why do humans deserve moral protection? Why can't a group of scientists kidnap you for experimental drug testing if they know the results might be for the betterment of mankind?

Primarily because humans are sapient. Secondly (and to a lesser extent) because humans develop morality to guide their society and interactions. Morality is not some sort of absolute, objective, external force. As for the hypothetical scientists in your scenario: they would be harming humans to help humans. Not the same thing as animal expermentation at all.

[Straha]

Since you don't seem to understand the most basic rules of how an experiment must be done to be of any real use (the more subjects the better, you need fucking control subjects to ensure shit hasn't happened on its own ruining the results and rendering futile all the animal deaths till then), I think you cannot really tell what is "horrific and should be stopped".

A. These experiments aren't of much real use in the first place, the statistics of the OP have never been contested nor are the scientific papers I posted on the last page that point out massive systemic harms in using animal experimentation.

B. I am saying the lives of animals lost through this system probably outweigh any benefit garnered through it. Unless you're going to make the claim that animal lives have no value you're pretty much up shit creek here.

C. More importantly, you're holding yourself up to an almost platonic idea of the scientific method done in perfection without an understanding of its consequences, both in benefits and cost. Even if you are going to judge this experiments off of a utilitarian model there's no way you can justify it.

[Akhlut]

Except that the Nazis were clearly wrong about the Jews' mental capacities, as Jews have identical mental capabilities as other human beings. Mice, in contrast, clearly lack several distinct human/intellectually advanced animal capabilities (language, sense of mortality, theory of mind, etc.).

Yes, but the science available at the time was unequivocal in concluding the opposite way. Whatever our read of the situation is now my argument is more precise that you are losing the ability to condemn the Nazis for what they did in the camps. More troubling for me is that you also lose the ability to prevent society from rationally deciding that other groups of people ought, once again, be excluded from the moral community and become legitimate targets for slaughter once more.

The science really wasn't unequivocal (hence even Nazi scientists saying the sole differences between Jews and Germans was, essentially, culture, as they limited Judaism to religion, essentially, because they couldn't distinguish Jews and Germans by any features if someone came from a very long line of practicing Jews that suddenly stopped practicing 3 or 4 generations ago; in addition to finding Aryan traits in Tibetans, for instance).

So, no, it was "just" ignorance on the part of the Nazis. We can still rightfully condemn them from a utilitarian point of view.

I believe we each have the right to ensure our continued existence.

Why does that extend to killing other agents with moral value? Why does your logic state that an act of self-defense makes killing another entity kosher? Why is there a qualitative difference between out and out killing, say, a dog on the street for no reason, versus shooting a man who is attacking me with a knife? Why do you make that distinction? Utilitarianism can make a strong argument for the difference (killing a dog for no reason increases suffering without any positive increases for anyone; killing a knife-wielding serial killer increases suffering, but it has the benefit of preventing additional suffering through his killing; your own philosophy seems to crib considerably from utilitarianism if you have to resort to the argument that killing the serial killer must be done to save others, whereas if your just defending yourself, well, the two deaths are equivalent, are they not? Death is death, is it not?), but can your argument do the same without resorting to implicit or explicit utilitarianism.

If I am attacked by a bacterial infection I have the same right to take whatever stance necessary to eliminate the disease from me, but no further. Just like if I am attacked by an axe murderer I have the right to engage in such force necessary to ensure my continued existence, but no further. I think that this is a really simple concept and I don't see how it's troubling you as much as it is.

But why? Why is your life worth more value than the bacteria's or the axe murderers? Utilitarianism can offer an answer, whereas your philosophy can't seem to without resorting to utilitarianism.

[Straha]

The dense one here is you, because you have not made that logical connection beyond your own say so.

So, the obvious question is what would constitute a logical connection for you then? Give me the criteria you're judging this by.

When they said that "we decide who is Jewish". Right.

Say what now?

Your stance sickens me.

And why exactly is that?

As for the hypothetical scientists in your scenario: they would be harming humans to help humans. Not the same thing as animal expermentation at all.

What makes it different?

[Lord Zentei]

The dense one here is you, because you have not made that logical connection beyond your own say so.

So, the obvious question is what would constitute a logical connection for you then? Give me the criteria you're judging this by.

WTF. Don't you know how to make a basic inference? You CLAIMED that the Jews Dr Mengele experimented on were just as much animal as the rats modern scientists experiment on, and that there is no way to condemn Mengele for human experimentation if you accept animal experimentation. You didn't even attempt to prove it. Hint: the conclusion cannot be a re-wording of the premise.

When they said that "we decide who is Jewish". Right.

Say what now?

“Mr. Lang, we decide who is Jewish and who is not.”
-- Joseph Goebbels

Your stance sickens me.

And why exactly is that?

Because you are pulling a Godwin on people who provide lifesaving treatments?

As for the hypothetical scientists in your scenario: they would be harming humans to help humans. Not the same thing as animal expermentation at all.

What makes it different?

I just pointed that out. The utilitarian benefit of helping humans is diminished by harming humans at the same time. If the purpose of medical research is to help humans, then using animal experimentation does not contradict that purpose. Your analogy is therefore false.

[Lagmonster]

If it makes anyone feel better, only a fraction of a percent of animals bred for testing are higher vertebrates (and no chimps or gorillas. The US is the only nation I know of that still openly uses chimps, and their use is decaying). PETA and their ilk are by and large squealing into an empty hole when it comes to animal testing, because nobody gives a shit about the rats and mice that make up about 80% of all animal testing. We go to great lengths to poison and beat them to death on sight, because we don't want them in our houses, where we store or grow food, in our hospitals, on our streets.

If anything scares me, it isn't that some people don't believe in the benefits of animal testing. No, what scares me are the ones that say that the worst thing they can do to a rat is just as bad as the worst thing we've ever done to people. Knowing that other people value human life, and my life, more highly than those of the pests in my garden comes as a great comfort in a world where the value of life is subjective. And whenever someone equates Auschwitz to chicken pens, I make a mental note to hope that person isn't a fireman, lest they figure that saving the family dog or the family baby is equally important (of course, in reality, they'll always save the baby, because they're all big fucking hypocrites).

PETA's overfed philosophers and their convictions can ramble on to their heart's content about animal rights and how they'll change the world, but the important thing for the rest of you to realize is their extraordinary impotence. They just don't stand a chance. My side has medicine that wouldn't have existed in its time otherwise, and theirs doesn't. My side offers healthier and safer herds, and safer meats for nations that cannot currently sustain other forms of agriculture, and theirs doesn't. My side offers function to humanity in almost everything you consume and employs infrastructure that sustains you at the cost of animals who will think nothing of contaminating or stealing your resources, and theirs doesn't. My side offers service animals safety from predators, the elements, hunger and disease, and theirs offers only the ambivalence of nature. Their ideals are a frictionless spire on the mountains of civilization.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I believe we each have the right to ensure our continued existence. If I am attacked by a bacterial infection I have the same right to take whatever stance necessary to eliminate the disease from me, but no further. Just like if I am attacked by an axe murderer I have the right to engage in such force necessary to ensure my continued existence, but no further. I think that this is a really simple concept and I don't see how it's troubling you as much as it is.

Out of curiosity, what is your stance on vaccinations and disease elimination programs? Simple saying it is self-defense doesn't quite cut it, since you say "but no further". After all, when creating vaccines, or studying the success of public health initiatives, there are many studies conducted, that will result in the deaths of millions of microbes of whatever species you care to name. Vaccines just don't come out of nowhere to help you when you are sick, there is a long process behind them; a destructive one if you are putting value on the life of the microbes involved. If you are giving equal moral value to microbes as to humans, then the creation of a vaccine or disease elimination program is equivalent to, say, killing any humans who bought an axe because you are afraid of an axe murderer (or something ... that's a pretty terrible analogy, but you should get my point, right?). Simply claiming "self-defense" doesn't work, because the very idea of vaccination is premised on preventative action, not reactive.