How do we tackle this problem?

>*extracted*
> I don't know. Why don't you find out how many actually had to endure a
>high degree of suffering, and also approximatley how many cases of the
>above mentioned ailments have been prevented?

Who cares how many suffered ! Even one is too many !

Don't you get it? If we don't have an ounce of care for those we have power
over, then what hope have we for caring for each other?
Using animals for our own gain is simply barbaric - we don't need to and
they sure as hell don't want us to.

I wonder, would you sacrifice yourself for the greater good? I doubt it.
 >> Stay informed about: How do we tackle this problem? 

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 00:19:16 +0800, "SpookyTrigger" <david_p_johnson.RemoveThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>
>"rick etter" <stop.RemoveThis@stop.net> wrote in message
>news:_FCZc.885$N4.454@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "SpookyTrigger" <david_p_johnson.RemoveThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:4136e16d$0$20500$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> > >*extracted*
>> > > I don't know. Why don't you find out how many actually had to endure a
>> > >high degree of suffering, and also approximatley how many cases of the
>> > >above mentioned ailments have been prevented?
>> >
>> > Who cares how many suffered ! Even one is too many !
>> >
>> > Don't you get it? If we don't have an ounce of care for those we have
>> power
>> > over, then what hope have we for caring for each other?
>> > Using animals for our own gain is simply barbaric - we don't need to and
>> > they sure as hell don't want us to.
>> ==================
>> Then why are you here on usenet, killer? You contribute to far more
>> inhumane and many more deaths of animals by continuing a demand for ever
>> more and more power and communications facilities. Those deaths are
>> because you want to be enytertained! I suggest that if you really want
>to
>> save animals, yet still kill some for your entertainment, that you take of
>> bullfighting. You'll still have the blood all over you hands, but at
>least
>> it will be far fewer animals than you're killing now....
>
>I know the info you've posted here but what's your point? Yes it's
>hypocritical to utilise most modern equipment and resources but without
>doing so would be like sticking your head in the sand and hoping the world
>changes itself. It aint gonna happen, particularly with your kind around.

It could be he'd like to see changes that would have a different impact
on animals than what you suggest, and it could be that some of those
changes would produce fewer wildlife deaths as well.

>Your argument is so ridiculous that it's almost laughable.

What he points out is truth that veg*ns apparently hate very much.

>Idiot!
 >> Stay informed about: How do we tackle this problem? 

"Ray" <ray RemoveThis @syntex.com> wrote in message news:<cgo88n$on4$1@sparta.btinternet.com>...
> I'm on my favourite subject - Vivisection.
>
> Recent media coverage suggests that the UK has shown considerable opposition
> to the likes
> of scumbags such as HLS.
> We have also kicked the arses of 'Montpellier' for building the torture site
> at Oxford. (fine work)
>
> It would appear that the UK has the most effective and dedicated team of ARA
> workers in the Europe.
> That's great, it's what we all wanted -but:

Is it right that those of us who disapprove of vivisection take
matters
into their own hands in this way? If yes, then why shouldn't every
group
of people who have a moral objection to some aspect of our society do
the
same? I do not wish to defend vivisection but I do consider it rather
arrogant
of certain ARAs to consider themselves above the democratic principle.

Some more constructive ways to oppose vivisection might be supporting
charities like the Dr Hadwen Trust that seek to develop viable
alternative methods of conducting medical research, avoiding products
made by companies that continue to test on animals or use new
animal-tested ingredients, lobbying policy makers
and attempting to increase public awareness of the issues.
 >> Stay informed about: How do we tackle this problem? 

"Purple" <purple2510.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9e034035.0409061553.83a29be@posting.google.com...
> "Ray" <ray.TakeThisOut@syntex.com> wrote in message
news:<cgo88n$on4$1@sparta.btinternet.com>...
> > I'm on my favourite subject - Vivisection.
> >
> > Recent media coverage suggests that the UK has shown considerable
opposition
> > to the likes
> > of scumbags such as HLS.
> > We have also kicked the arses of 'Montpellier' for building the torture
site
> > at Oxford. (fine work)
> >
> > It would appear that the UK has the most effective and dedicated team of
ARA
> > workers in the Europe.
> > That's great, it's what we all wanted -but:
>
> Is it right that those of us who disapprove of vivisection take
> matters
> into their own hands in this way? If yes, then why shouldn't every
> group
> of people who have a moral objection to some aspect of our society do
> the
> same? I do not wish to defend vivisection but I do consider it rather
> arrogant
> of certain ARAs to consider themselves above the democratic principle.

Unfortunately, ARAs in the UK have seen the democratic process fail time and
time again. Is it not understandable that there will come a time when they
can no longer sit back and wait? After all, there are lives at stake.

>
> Some more constructive ways to oppose vivisection might be supporting
> charities like the Dr Hadwen Trust that seek to develop viable
> alternative methods of conducting medical research, avoiding products
> made by companies that continue to test on animals or use new
> animal-tested ingredients, lobbying policy makers
> and attempting to increase public awareness of the issues.

Almost all ARAs actively support such charities so you could say they go
hand in hand with their cause. However, a small number of such charities do
oppose the actions of ARAs - understandably.
Again, you would be hard pushed to find an ARA that buys products from
companies that test.
 >> Stay informed about: How do we tackle this problem? 

"SpookyTrigger" <david_p_johnson.RemoveThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:<413f0867$0$19870$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...
> "Purple" <purple2510.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9e034035.0409061553.83a29be@posting.google.com...
> > "Ray" <ray.RemoveThis@syntex.com> wrote in message
> news:<cgo88n$on4$1@sparta.btinternet.com>...
> > > I'm on my favourite subject - Vivisection.
> > >
> > > Recent media coverage suggests that the UK has shown considerable
> opposition
> > > to the likes
> > > of scumbags such as HLS.
> > > We have also kicked the arses of 'Montpellier' for building the torture
> site
> > > at Oxford. (fine work)
> > >
> > > It would appear that the UK has the most effective and dedicated team of
> ARA
> > > workers in the Europe.
> > > That's great, it's what we all wanted -but:
> >
> > Is it right that those of us who disapprove of vivisection take
> > matters
> > into their own hands in this way? If yes, then why shouldn't every
> > group
> > of people who have a moral objection to some aspect of our society do
> > the
> > same? I do not wish to defend vivisection but I do consider it rather
> > arrogant
> > of certain ARAs to consider themselves above the democratic principle.
>
> Unfortunately, ARAs in the UK have seen the democratic process fail time and
> time again.

Democracy as practised in this, and other countries, is indeed very
far from
perfect. I do however consider it important that we have some sort of
framework for determining, as a society, what activities are
permissible
rather than have individuals deciding for themselves and then
sabotaging
anything they don't agree with. If you need help understanding what I
am trying
to say, consider another emotive issue (perhaps abortion?)which some
people feel very strongly against and would like to prevent but you
consider necessary
or at least benefitial.

>Is it not understandable that there will come a time when they
> can no longer sit back and wait? After all, there are lives at stake.

Yes. It is very understandable. I am strongly opposed to animal
testing
for cosmetics and feel somewhat uneasy about it even when for medical
research. However I do not consider direct action a valid means of
opposition when attempts at persuasion fail. afaics Undertaking direct
action
is to assume that you have more rights to make moral judgements on
vivisection then other people.

> >
> > Some more constructive ways to oppose vivisection might be supporting
> > charities like the Dr Hadwen Trust that seek to develop viable
> > alternative methods of conducting medical research, avoiding products
> > made by companies that continue to test on animals or use new
> > animal-tested ingredients, lobbying policy makers
> > and attempting to increase public awareness of the issues.
>
> Almost all ARAs actively support such charities so you could say they go
> hand in hand with their cause. However, a small number of such charities do
> oppose the actions of ARAs - understandably.
> Again, you would be hard pushed to find an ARA that buys products from
> companies that test.

Agreed.
 >> Stay informed about: How do we tackle this problem? 

"SpookyTrigger" <david_p_johnson.TakeThisOut@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:<41491739$0$908$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...
<snip>

Hi,

> >
> > Actually I think there are many issues sufficiently complex that I can not
> > predict your answer based on the common sense guidelines you are using.
> > For example it could be argued that the tests being done on animals will
> > lead to knowledge that could be used to stop harm and suffering in the
> future.
> >
> If I could be convinced that a particular medical problem could not be
> investigated without the use of an animal model and that there was
> absolutely no alternative to that animal suffering, then I would most likely
> be swayed by that arguement. However, it would be unbelieveable if this were
> the case.

I'd feel more comfortable with your argument if you could expand on
that a bit. With respect, I'd suggest that your personal incredulity
shouldn't be a criterion for expecting others to accept your beliefs.

> It may be a quicker method of investigating the problem, but
> unlikely ever to be a replacement.We both know it's down to saving money and
> not that animal models are essential.

I, for one, certainly don't think it's down to saving money. It is
perfectly true that pharmaceutical companies (pharmcos) are not
philanthropists, and that their bottom line is money. The R&D
'pipeline' - the process that's gone through from identifying a
candidate compound for a particular theraputic area, to actually
selling a finished, tested drug - takes years, sometimes more than a
decade. It costs enormous amounts of money to even identify the
candidate compound in the first place, and that's well prior to any
sort of testing programme. If at any stage of the R&D process there's
a problem with the drug, the company waves goodbye to millions of
dollars of research money - because the biggest issue for any
corporation is reputational risk. Conspiracy theorists like to think
that pharmcos consider the consequences of faulty drugs being brought
to market as acceptable collateral damage, but you only have to look
at the share prices and bottom lines of those companies who've done
this to know that it hurts enough for them to consider it highly
undesirable.

In the financial context of the whole R&D pipeline, then, there is
relatively little difference between the costs of testing on animals
and other forms of testing (computer modelling, for example). Given
that fact, and the issues mentioned concerning bringing a faulty drug
to market, pharmcos aren't after the cheapest testing, they're after
the most *effective* testing - the one that is most likely to detect
the potential for adverse reaction. And, as has been noted, animal
experiments are not that effective. Which is why, when possible, the
pharmcos ARE moving away from animal experiments. It's nothing to do
with the persuasion or coercion of external groups, it's simply a
matter of economics. Thus, in those instances where the alternate
methods are less effective (and not necessarily where they're more
expensive), animals are still used.

<snip>

> I agree and am happy to let eveyone believe what they want, as long as they
> don't cause any suffering to others. I believe this is a basic fundamental
> right of all living beings, to live their own lives, free of the actions of
> others.

The first part of this statement is, I think, something that most
people would agree on - on the basis that the "others" mentioned were
"other human beings". It's the second part where you're out of kilter
with most people in Western society.

"Rights" are an entirely human construct. Consequently, animals have
no concept of "rights", and, strictly, no "rights" outside those which
humans consider they have conferred on them.

You stumble into a crevasse in the Sumatran jungle. There's no
immediate way out - there are some rocks strewn about, and you could
pile them up to climb out eventually, but it will take a couple of
days hard work, and you have very limited supplies. Suddenly, a noise
behind you alerts you to the fact that you're not alone. There is a
Tigress, who has clearly become trapped in the crevasse too, and
behind her you see she has a cub. She is snarling at you, apparently
preparing to attack, probably in defence of her cub. You happen to
have a rifle with you (in case you were attacked by poachers).

Who has the "right" to do what in this situation? Does the Tigress
have the "right" to attack you? After all, you have no intention of
harming her or her cub. Do you have the "right" to defend yourself?
If you killed her, would you have infringed her "rights"? If she
killed you, would she have infringed yours?

Incidentally, evidence suggests that domesticated animals would be
unable to survive without human intervention. I've often wondered how
those supporting the "rights" of animals would handle
de-domestication. Any thoughts?

>
> > My slightly deeper point is that it is difficult to conceive of a cohesive
> > society in which everyone employs ARA analogous direct action methods
> > in pursuit of a society more in tune with their particular worldview.
> >
>
> I do see your point but I can only argue, having been one of these, that
> most ARAs do not care if society believes as they do, they simply want to
> prevent the suffering they see.

If activists don't care about society, so be it: they ultimately doom
their efforts to futile fiddling around the edges, and petty victories
over those they see as being suitably soft targets. Because without
societal consensus to end it, the "suffering" *will* go on and on and
on. That seems rather selfish, doesn't it? Trying to satisfy a
personal desire to make an immediate and minor change, at the expense
of long-term major change?

The problem here is that society doesn't care about the suffering
which *you* see - they care about themselves. And that selfishness
is an inherent human trait: to want the best for oneself and one's
own. It can be moderated by a greater or lesser degree of empathy,
but for a lot of people, empathy is a species-restricted attribute.
There are those that consider the idea that animals have rights to be
a ludicrous bit of anthropomorphising, pointing out that it does not
appear that animals extend empathy towards us as a species.

> Their point will always be, 'when is compassion a crime?'.

Compassion is a relative thing. And when a human being attacks
another in the name of compassion, it's simply a rationalisation of a
crime. How different is the activist who harms an animal experimenter
for their purposes from the experimenter who harms the animal for
theirs?

> I know this doesn't help one bit, but it might help to grasp a deeper
> meaning of these people and possibly sway you away from seeing them in the
> same light as other fundamentalist movements.

Can you make clear the differentiation we should make between those
who attack others because they harm animals, and those who attack
others because of another ideological reason?

> After all, nothing they do is for their own personal gain, but for the
> animals who cannot speak for themselves.

It has been argued that the actions of animal rights activists are
primarily self-serving: they psychologically need to feel
self-righteous and ethically purer than the majority. There have been
cases in the past (minks being released from fur farms, for example)
where the actions of activists damaged the local wildlife terribly.

Ta,

Steve
(Pentlyzic)
 >> Stay informed about: How do we tackle this problem? 

"Steve Jones" <pentylzic DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote
> "SpookyTrigger" <david_p_johnson DeleteThis @optusnet.com.au> wrote
> <snip>

> > It may be a quicker method of investigating the problem, but
> > unlikely ever to be a replacement.We both know it's down to saving money
and
> > not that animal models are essential.
>
> I, for one, certainly don't think it's down to saving money.

According to a researcher that used to post here regularly, using animals is
much more expensive than the alternatives. Animals are used because there is
no viable alternative.
 >> Stay informed about: How do we tackle this problem? 

"Steve Jones" <pentylzic.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d79ae05d.0409160754.201c0066@posting.google.com...
> "SpookyTrigger" <david_p_johnson.TakeThisOut@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:<41491739$0$908$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...
> <snip>
>
> Hi,

Hi,

>
> > >
> > > Actually I think there are many issues sufficiently complex that I can
not
> > > predict your answer based on the common sense guidelines you are
using.
> > > For example it could be argued that the tests being done on animals
will
> > > lead to knowledge that could be used to stop harm and suffering in the
> > future.
> > >
> > If I could be convinced that a particular medical problem could not be
> > investigated without the use of an animal model and that there was
> > absolutely no alternative to that animal suffering, then I would most
likely
> > be swayed by that arguement. However, it would be unbelieveable if this
were
> > the case.
>
> I'd feel more comfortable with your argument if you could expand on
> that a bit. With respect, I'd suggest that your personal incredulity
> shouldn't be a criterion for expecting others to accept your beliefs.
>
I think it's obvious what I'm stating. If a researcher could show me exactly
why a particular research problem requires an animal to undergo an
experimental procedure, and that this procedure could not be completed
correctly without an animal model, then I would rethink my belief that
animals should not be used in research.
I feel that in an age were we are able to achieve so much through
technological advances, that we still need to rely on such a barbaric
method.

> > It may be a quicker method of investigating the problem, but
> > unlikely ever to be a replacement.We both know it's down to saving money
and
> > not that animal models are essential.
>
> I, for one, certainly don't think it's down to saving money. It is
> perfectly true that pharmaceutical companies (pharmcos) are not
> philanthropists, and that their bottom line is money. The R&D
> 'pipeline' - the process that's gone through from identifying a
> candidate compound for a particular theraputic area, to actually
> selling a finished, tested drug - takes years, sometimes more than a
> decade. It costs enormous amounts of money to even identify the
> candidate compound in the first place, and that's well prior to any
> sort of testing programme. If at any stage of the R&D process there's
> a problem with the drug, the company waves goodbye to millions of
> dollars of research money - because the biggest issue for any
> corporation is reputational risk. Conspiracy theorists like to think
> that pharmcos consider the consequences of faulty drugs being brought
> to market as acceptable collateral damage, but you only have to look
> at the share prices and bottom lines of those companies who've done
> this to know that it hurts enough for them to consider it highly
> undesirable.
>
> In the financial context of the whole R&D pipeline, then, there is
> relatively little difference between the costs of testing on animals
> and other forms of testing (computer modelling, for example). Given
> that fact, and the issues mentioned concerning bringing a faulty drug
> to market, pharmcos aren't after the cheapest testing, they're after
> the most *effective* testing - the one that is most likely to detect
> the potential for adverse reaction. And, as has been noted, animal
> experiments are not that effective. Which is why, when possible, the
> pharmcos ARE moving away from animal experiments. It's nothing to do
> with the persuasion or coercion of external groups, it's simply a
> matter of economics. Thus, in those instances where the alternate
> methods are less effective (and not necessarily where they're more
> expensive), animals are still used.
>

It is obvious that you have a greater knowledge of the R&D process than I
do. That said, I can only take your word for the financial involvement.
However, I understand that the majority of animals used in the research
stages are in fact there to serve one purpose. That is to get the product to
market as quickly as possible. Is is a fact that most experimenters will
choose an animal to satisfy the outcome of a particular experiment. This
told to me in person by people in the field.
These companies care only about getting their products through the initial
development stages and approved through the use of animal testing.
Thereafter they are tested on humans anyway, so they can be confident of the
products subsequent public safety.

All that said, there is still the ethical issue of how acceptable is it to
utilise an animal for our own gains?

> <snip>
>
> > I agree and am happy to let eveyone believe what they want, as long as
they
> > don't cause any suffering to others. I believe this is a basic
fundamental
> > right of all living beings, to live their own lives, free of the actions
of
> > others.
>
> The first part of this statement is, I think, something that most
> people would agree on - on the basis that the "others" mentioned were
> "other human beings". It's the second part where you're out of kilter
> with most people in Western society.
>
> "Rights" are an entirely human construct. Consequently, animals have
> no concept of "rights", and, strictly, no "rights" outside those which
> humans consider they have conferred on them.

Ok, so 'rights' is the wrong word. What should I use? It best explains a
persons/animals belief in it's own freedom to live. If there's a better
word, I'd like to know what it is.
You seem to be using the word in a legal and not moral sense.

My point (without using said word) is that everyone (inc animals) should
have the freedom to exist without anyone else (inc animals) performing
actions that cause them harm or suffering.
I don't claim to have the word capacity of most so hopefully that will go
someway to saying how I feel.

>
> You stumble into a crevasse in the Sumatran jungle. There's no
> immediate way out - there are some rocks strewn about, and you could
> pile them up to climb out eventually, but it will take a couple of
> days hard work, and you have very limited supplies. Suddenly, a noise
> behind you alerts you to the fact that you're not alone. There is a
> Tigress, who has clearly become trapped in the crevasse too, and
> behind her you see she has a cub. She is snarling at you, apparently
> preparing to attack, probably in defence of her cub. You happen to
> have a rifle with you (in case you were attacked by poachers).
>
> Who has the "right" to do what in this situation? Does the Tigress
> have the "right" to attack you? After all, you have no intention of
> harming her or her cub. Do you have the "right" to defend yourself?
> If you killed her, would you have infringed her "rights"? If she
> killed you, would she have infringed yours?

Again, rights is being used here in legal terms.
Both parties have the 'right' to be left alone - the outcome of the
situation is what it is dependant on how each party reacts.
In the case of the Tigress, she would be forgiven for her actions beccause
she relies on instinct. For me, I would hope to do the best I could without
causing harm to either party. However, of course I would defend myself.
This doesn't mean I had the right to, it just happened that way and a moral
judgement would be that I had no choice.
Unfortunately, if the Tigress had killed me, the same wouldn't apply, she
would be hunted down and killed because society says it's morally acceptable
to do so.
>
> Incidentally, evidence suggests that domesticated animals would be
> unable to survive without human intervention. I've often wondered how
> those supporting the "rights" of animals would handle
> de-domestication. Any thoughts?

Yes, gradually.

>
> >
> > > My slightly deeper point is that it is difficult to conceive of a
cohesive
> > > society in which everyone employs ARA analogous direct action methods
> > > in pursuit of a society more in tune with their particular worldview.
> > >
> >
> > I do see your point but I can only argue, having been one of these, that
> > most ARAs do not care if society believes as they do, they simply want
to
> > prevent the suffering they see.
>
> If activists don't care about society, so be it: they ultimately doom
> their efforts to futile fiddling around the edges, and petty victories
> over those they see as being suitably soft targets. Because without
> societal consensus to end it, the "suffering" *will* go on and on and
> on. That seems rather selfish, doesn't it? Trying to satisfy a
> personal desire to make an immediate and minor change, at the expense
> of long-term major change?

No, it's human - to see an act of barbarism and try to stop it.

>
> The problem here is that society doesn't care about the suffering
> which *you* see - they care about themselves. And that selfishness
> is an inherent human trait: to want the best for oneself and one's
> own. It can be moderated by a greater or lesser degree of empathy,
> but for a lot of people, empathy is a species-restricted attribute.
> There are those that consider the idea that animals have rights to be
> a ludicrous bit of anthropomorphising, pointing out that it does not
> appear that animals extend empathy towards us as a species.

I agree that we need educating.

>
> > Their point will always be, 'when is compassion a crime?'.
>
> Compassion is a relative thing. And when a human being attacks
> another in the name of compassion, it's simply a rationalisation of a
> crime. How different is the activist who harms an animal experimenter
> for their purposes from the experimenter who harms the animal for
> theirs?

This is exactly the point that we (purple and I) were discussing - not
arguing I might add.
In answer to this question, and because of my own beliefs, I would say there
is a difference. This is because I see an experimenter as one who utilises
animals for their own good and not for the good of society. This goes
against my belief that we should not harm others (inc animals) for personal
gain. Therefore, i find it acceptable that *we* do what *we* can to stop the
experimenter and so putting (in my belief) the activist on the moral high
ground.

>
> > I know this doesn't help one bit, but it might help to grasp a deeper
> > meaning of these people and possibly sway you away from seeing them in
the
> > same light as other fundamentalist movements.
>
> Can you make clear the differentiation we should make between those
> who attack others because they harm animals, and those who attack
> others because of another ideological reason?

That would depend on the ideology. If they reason to use harm to achieve a
goal and that goal is to reduce the suffering of others, then why not?
Ok, a bit vague, sorry, but my point is there is no difference if the
movements reasoning aim is to stop suffering/harm.
>
> > After all, nothing they do is for their own personal gain, but for the
> > animals who cannot speak for themselves.
>
> It has been argued that the actions of animal rights activists are
> primarily self-serving: they psychologically need to feel
> self-righteous and ethically purer than the majority. There have been
> cases in the past (minks being released from fur farms, for example)
> where the actions of activists damaged the local wildlife terribly.

I would disagree with this as just another petty attempt to minimise
societies exposure to a cause that is based on compassion. The issue of mink
farm liberations can be argued forever because there is no evidence of how
much impact they cause. The real issue is, those farms will likely go out of
business and so save the suffering of many more mink in the future.

I would like to strongly disagree again and say that almost all ARAs want to
see an end to animal abuse so that they can stop protesting and go back to
living in peace.

>
> Ta,
>
> Steve
> (Pentlyzic)
 >> Stay informed about: How do we tackle this problem? 

"Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote in message
news:10kjeegmjcs0n53@news.supernews.com...
>
> "Steve Jones" <pentylzic.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote
> > "SpookyTrigger" <david_p_johnson.RemoveThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote
> > <snip>
>
> > > It may be a quicker method of investigating the problem, but
> > > unlikely ever to be a replacement.We both know it's down to saving
money
> and
> > > not that animal models are essential.
> >
> > I, for one, certainly don't think it's down to saving money.
>
> According to a researcher that used to post here regularly, using animals
is
> much more expensive than the alternatives. Animals are used because there
is
> no viable alternative.
>
Of course, I'm going to believe a researcher !
 >> Stay informed about: How do we tackle this problem? 

SpookyTrigger" <david_p_johnson RemoveThis @optusnet.com.au> wrote
> "Dutch" <no RemoveThis @email.com> wrote

> > According to a researcher that used to post here regularly, using
animals
> is
> > much more expensive than the alternatives. Animals are used because
there
> is
> > no viable alternative.
> >
> Of course, I'm going to believe a researcher !

Who else? Are you going to believe ARAs who contend that animals are used to
satisfy the researchers' sadistic urges?
 >> Stay informed about: How do we tackle this problem? 

"Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote in message
news:10km4odeochq85c@news.supernews.com...
> SpookyTrigger" <david_p_johnson.RemoveThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote
> > "Dutch" <no.RemoveThis@email.com> wrote
>
> > > According to a researcher that used to post here regularly, using
> animals
> > is
> > > much more expensive than the alternatives. Animals are used because
> there
> > is
> > > no viable alternative.
> > >
> > Of course, I'm going to believe a researcher !
>
> Who else? Are you going to believe ARAs who contend that animals are used
to
> satisfy the researchers' sadistic urges?
>
Where did you get that view? Sadistic they may be in many a persons eye, but
only because they know no different - an attribute normally associated with
animals. As mentioned in earlier postings, they simply need educating, along
with some users on this group.
 >> Stay informed about: How do we tackle this problem? 

On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 17:00:00 +0800, "SpookyTrigger" <david_p_johnson DeleteThis @optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>
>"rick etter" <stop DeleteThis @stop.net> wrote in message
>news:hLO_c.1309$ip2.582@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "SpookyTrigger" <david_p_johnson DeleteThis @optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:41389982$0$11936$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> >
>> > "rick etter" <stop DeleteThis @stop.net> wrote in message
>> > news:_FCZc.885$N4.454@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> > >
>> > > "SpookyTrigger" <david_p_johnson DeleteThis @optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>> > > news:4136e16d$0$20500$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> > > > >*extracted*
>> > > > > I don't know. Why don't you find out how many actually had to
>endure
>> a
>> > > > >high degree of suffering, and also approximatley how many cases of
>> the
>> > > > >above mentioned ailments have been prevented?
>> > > >
>> > > > Who cares how many suffered ! Even one is too many !
>> > > >
>> > > > Don't you get it? If we don't have an ounce of care for those we
>have
>> > > power
>> > > > over, then what hope have we for caring for each other?
>> > > > Using animals for our own gain is simply barbaric - we don't need to
>> and
>> > > > they sure as hell don't want us to.
>> > > ==================
>> > > Then why are you here on usenet, killer? You contribute to far more
>> > > inhumane and many more deaths of animals by continuing a demand for
>ever
>> > > more and more power and communications facilities. Those deaths are
>> > > because you want to be enytertained! I suggest that if you really
>want
>> > to
>> > > save animals, yet still kill some for your entertainment, that you
>take
>> of
>> > > bullfighting. You'll still have the blood all over you hands, but at
>> > least
>> > > it will be far fewer animals than you're killing now....
>> >
>> > I know the info you've posted here but what's your point? Yes it's
>> > hypocritical to utilise most modern equipment and resources but without
>> > doing so would be like sticking your head in the sand and hoping the
>world
>> > changes itself. It aint gonna happen, particularly with your kind
>around.
>> ================
>> The point, fool, is that your diet has about the least impact on animals
>of
>> everything in your lifestyle. To pretend that by not eating animals you
>> are somehow making a difference is not only ignorant and delusional, but
>> just plan stupid.
>
>Now that's just plain stupid. My not eating animals does make a difference,
>a small one of course,

If more people die than turn veg*n, then people who die make a
bigger difference than veg*ns do. They don't consume things with
animal by-products in them either. Well, come to think of it I guess
veg*ns do have a bigger impact since they contribute to most of the
same deaths as everyone else does, and many meat substitutes
contain egg whites which contribute to battery farming hens.

>but then again there are enough people who aren't
>stupid enough to be convinced that we 'need' to eat animals to survive

How can anyone know whether society could continue the way
we want it if we didn't make use of animals?

>and
>as such are making up the numbers who avoid meat. The numbers are growing
>every day, more and more people are becoming vegetarian or vegan and that
>will make a difference.

What difference could it make? Fewer animals live...that's
about it.

· From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one meal of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of meals
derived from grass raised cattle. Grass raised animal products
contribute to less wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

>If you can't see that, you're the fool.
[...]
 >> Stay informed about: How do we tackle this problem? 

<dh_ld DeleteThis @nomail.com> wrote in message
news:gd2pk09f36gd7mg1767ndl9pc2t68hguat@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 17:00:00 +0800, "SpookyTrigger"
<david_p_johnson DeleteThis @optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >
> >"rick etter" <stop DeleteThis @stop.net> wrote in message
> >news:hLO_c.1309$ip2.582@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >>
> >> "SpookyTrigger" <david_p_johnson DeleteThis @optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> >> news:41389982$0$11936$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> >> >
> >> > "rick etter" <stop DeleteThis @stop.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:_FCZc.885$N4.454@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> > >
> >> > > "SpookyTrigger" <david_p_johnson DeleteThis @optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> >> > > news:4136e16d$0$20500$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> >> > > > >*extracted*
> >> > > > > I don't know. Why don't you find out how many actually had to
> >endure
> >> a
> >> > > > >high degree of suffering, and also approximatley how many cases
of
> >> the
> >> > > > >above mentioned ailments have been prevented?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Who cares how many suffered ! Even one is too many !
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Don't you get it? If we don't have an ounce of care for those we
> >have
> >> > > power
> >> > > > over, then what hope have we for caring for each other?
> >> > > > Using animals for our own gain is simply barbaric - we don't need
to
> >> and
> >> > > > they sure as hell don't want us to.
> >> > > ==================
> >> > > Then why are you here on usenet, killer? You contribute to far
more
> >> > > inhumane and many more deaths of animals by continuing a demand for
> >ever
> >> > > more and more power and communications facilities. Those deaths
are
> >> > > because you want to be enytertained! I suggest that if you really
> >want
> >> > to
> >> > > save animals, yet still kill some for your entertainment, that you
> >take
> >> of
> >> > > bullfighting. You'll still have the blood all over you hands, but
at
> >> > least
> >> > > it will be far fewer animals than you're killing now....
> >> >
> >> > I know the info you've posted here but what's your point? Yes it's
> >> > hypocritical to utilise most modern equipment and resources but
without
> >> > doing so would be like sticking your head in the sand and hoping the
> >world
> >> > changes itself. It aint gonna happen, particularly with your kind
> >around.
> >> ================
> >> The point, fool, is that your diet has about the least impact on
animals
> >of
> >> everything in your lifestyle. To pretend that by not eating animals
you
> >> are somehow making a difference is not only ignorant and delusional,
but
> >> just plan stupid.
> >
> >Now that's just plain stupid. My not eating animals does make a
difference,
> >a small one of course,
>
> If more people die than turn veg*n, then people who die make a
> bigger difference than veg*ns do. They don't consume things with
> animal by-products in them either. Well, come to think of it I guess
> veg*ns do have a bigger impact since they contribute to most of the
> same deaths as everyone else does, and many meat substitutes
> contain egg whites which contribute to battery farming hens.
>
By not eating animals, animals lives are saved, that's my point. What's
yours?

> >but then again there are enough people who aren't
> >stupid enough to be convinced that we 'need' to eat animals to survive
>
> How can anyone know whether society could continue the way
> we want it if we didn't make use of animals?

Who said anything about knowing if society could continue? I'm simply
stating that no-one needs to eat meat, it's just another luxury that most
enjoy without knowing the suffering it causes. Same with dairy products!

>
> >and
> >as such are making up the numbers who avoid meat. The numbers are growing
> >every day, more and more people are becoming vegetarian or vegan and that
> >will make a difference.
>
> What difference could it make? Fewer animals live...that's
> about it.

You're getting there.

>
> · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
> draining of fields, one meal of soy or rice based product is
> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of meals
> derived from grass raised cattle. Grass raised animal products
> contribute to less wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
>
So your point is we need to stop eating animals, eliminate dairy farming and
try to figure out a way to grow crops without impacting on both the
environment and causing animal abuse. I agree.

> >If you can't see that, you're the fool.
> [...]

I probably am simply for replying to you.
 >> Stay informed about: How do we tackle this problem?