Was this just a technical error, or am I being censored?

Anyway, here is what I said, in different words:

I was surprised to read that the SHAC people actually bashed someone on the head. I would love to know where the author got this information.

Traditionally, animal rights and other activist groups have committed "civil disobedience," or smashed facilities, but never harmed people. Most of these activists know that if they did harm people, that would make them no better than animal abusers.

If SHAC did bodily harm people, then no, I definitely don't support that.

But there is also a chance that the author might have gotten this information from a source that makes up stories about SHAC just to make them look bad, like the Swift Boat people did with John Kerry.

Hillbilly-Level insult, courtesy of "Itsnoteasybeinggreen"

>>>>So please, either take your philosophy 100% seriously and kill yourself before you do any more damage to the other animals...or just shut the fuck up because all you've really done is arbitrarily set the line one step previous to where you just walked. How very convenient for you. Remember, an environmentalist is just someone who built their house in the woods first. That truckload of growth-hormone free Ben & Jerry's on its way to Seattle pollutes the atmosphere and creates just as much roadkill as the truckload of plastic shit on its way to Wal-Mart in Alabama.>>>>

I understand the question you were asking, Kevin. My reading comprehension is quite respectable, thank you. However, you are asking the wrong question. You want to ask, "If you had to make a choice, what would you choose?" and the truth is, you don't have to make that choice. Not in this situation. If you have read any of my earlier posts (this is a long thread, so I wouldn't blame you if you haven't, or don't recall) then you will note that I cited that animal testing is not scientifically necessary. In fact, as more time passes since the formation of the FDA policies on animal testing, we begin to realize that testing on animals is problematic owing to our better understanding of DNA. Translation from an animal to a human is not a finite science, by any means. At best it is a good guess. In earlier posts I left links to the PCRM position paper, and I also left links for the paper by the NIH which talks about our abilities now, and the possibilities of non-animal tests in the future, especially as we face the EU ban on them by 2013. There are tests today that, as we currently perform them, cannot be reproduced artificially. But that does not speak to the validity of those specific tests, (which can certainly be and absolutely is questioned) and it does not mean that in the near future we won't be able to reproduce the tests artificially.

In other words, your question is designed to manipulate the answerer into saying they value human life more than animal life, but that question is inane. You will say human, because you are human. By the same token, if you asked me if there were two babies, one of them was my own and one of them was a neighbor's, and I could only save one, what would I do? The answer will be that you will save your own, because it is your own and you relate to it more than your neighbor's baby. But that doesn't mean that just because you (understandably) made the choice to save your own baby that the neighbor's baby is less worth saving. Your choice is a personal choice, and doesn't reflect the value of the subject in question.

That is why the question of animal suffering/ whether animals feel or think like humans, and which animals are more worthy of saving is not worth talking about. Those are value judgements, and need be divorced from ethics and science. A metaphor would be in terms of environmentalism: the salt marsh or the swamp are not appreciated as things of wonder or beauty by human beings. But just because we think that they are ugly or not of any value does not negate their contribution to our ecosystem. We have very recently learned the folly of this train of thought.

Not only that, but who said that "thinking like humans" is the barometer of worth? That is a warped anthrocentric view that would get you laughed out of any real discussion of science.

I can assure you that I'm not a hillbilly, and that I didn't insult anyone. I merely asked people NOT to insult cosmicmojo. If that in an of itself is an insult, I'm am confused.

Additionally, I think you missed the point of a thought experiment--you have to actually work within the constraints of the thought experiment. Of course if it was possible to save all 5 one would do so, who would let their cats or baby burn if it wasn't necessary. The point is if you are UNABLE and that's the whole point, what would you do. And I really think you are lying to yourself that you'd be as distraught over your cat equally or more than your own child. Although if you aren't you are quite like any human being that I've ever encountered.

The point is that there are choices in everything, and unless you are a Jain and concerned about not killing bacteria, you do draw moral lines between lives all the time.

Caroline, great letter. You're absolutely right about the difference between laws and policies. Statutes and regulations require a lot of work to write and amend; policies can be changed by an individual's decision, though politics is always a concern.

There is no law that says companies need to use animals for their tests. They do so because it's cheap, and the tests offer them protection from lawsuits which may result from injuries caused by their products. Non-animal tests are available, but too many companies would rather trade animal suffering for a few pennies saved.

I'll never forget an undercover video I saw of an aerosol product being tested. The lab "technician" merely took a can of some kind of spray product and sprayed it through the mesh top of a cage containing several white rats. The rats were covered with the stuff and gasped for breath. Surprise, getting that stuff in your eyes and nose and throat is bad for you. It was about as scientific as reading entrails. When you see stuff like that, you realize what b.s. animal testing is, and make a point of buying from companies that are cruelty-free.