Letters to the Editor
-
Give them enough rope.....
.....and they'll always hang themselves eventually.
My guess is the letter below was written by one of this terrorist group's overt or covert members. Notice how this particular issue suddenly has so many cut & pasted screeds for every aspect of their cause. Notice how many people--for a change--sign their first and last name, adding a faux sense of authority and purpose. (It would be interesting to follow up and see if they're pseudonyms or not.) Here's the letter:
the thing is
Humans are the least valuable species on this planet, because they are incredibly plentiful and cause massive environmental destruction. Therefore, animal testing, for drugs and other products and procedures which are geared towards saving and/or improving human life, should be abandoned.
-- Mark Stevens
My point documented; thank you Mark. I always had the sense that at some deep psychological level these folks just hated themselves and were simply projecting their trauma on the rest of us. Go back and read their letters. A childhood pet, a fixation on a cartoon (Snoopy), some past wrong to overcompensate for...some bullsh*t reason to decide that civil discourse, the ballot box, and having to deal with the grown-up reality that we just don't always get our way so we just have to manage. If it sounds like the Muslims getting their knickers twisted over cartoons...if it sounds like uber-patriots worried that burning a piece of cloth with stars and stripes on it will somehow ruin their freedom...if it sounds like an over-zealous sports fan leaving his seat to invade the playing fiels to "right a wrong".....well it's just another fundamentalist beyond reason, beyond sense, beyond civility. I saw we simply hold them all to the letter of the law and be done with it.
-
misinformation
>>Skin irritancy tests, such as the Draize 24-hour Patch Test and Dermal Toxicity tests, are conducted on rabbits, guinea pigs and other animals. The process involves placing chemicals on the animals' raw, shaved skin and covering the skin with adhesive plaster. The animals are immobilized in restraining devices to prevent them from struggling while laboratory workers apply the chemicals, which burn into the animals' skin.>>
Very Misleading.
Yes, it would burn like acid if it were acid, but usually it's shampoo. At worst it can get a little itchy and an antihistimine is applied after the data is collected. For cosmetics, animals are rarely restrained. And we don't have to pour acid into bunnies eyes to establish that it burns, we already know that. And, I'd sure want to know if shampoo in the eye was going to burn my baby's eyes or just irritate it.
-
Regarding "Mark Stevens" and "Happy Carnivore"
"Mark Stevens'" misanthropic screed is no more indicative of animal rights advocates in general than is "Happy Carnivore's" indifference to farm animals' suffering indicative of people who eat meat.
-
Reply to Cosmicmojo
Cosmicmojo: at best you are in denial, at worst, you are an outright liar. Cosmetic testing of animals is painful for them. It does cause them to suffer greatly. You paint a little fantasy world of happy animals in labs. At least have the courage of your convictions and face up to the fact that you support cosmetic testing of animals despite the fact that it is cruel.
http://www.atourhands.com/cosmetic.html
-
facts
I never said animals don't suffer for medical research. In fact I said I have decided I think it's a fair cost for the amazing medical advances we've made and lives we've saved.
But, your emotional description with lots of drama is not accurate. The animals are sedated, so they arent' trembling in fear the way you describe.
Considering how many animal 'rights' letters here contained humongous lies (Europeans scientists laugh snidly at American doctors, when in fact, we're the envy of every country for our cutting edge research), I'd be careful with accusations of lies.
-
Not Terrorists
and I am shocked by how many letter writers are willing to label SHAC terrorists.
I definitely don't condone violence such as the ax-handle attack. But, why does one violent act by people affiliated with the group mean that this is a terrorist organization? I have never heard anyone in the government refer to anti-abortion protestors as terrorists? Why is SHAC?
I think I know the answer. It's because the opponents of animal testing want to stand in the way of America's most important citizen: Big Business. This is the same reason that ELF and Earth First get labeled as "eco-terrorists." ELF's most famous action is burning down a condominium complex in Colorado - no loss of human life. Yet, they are terrorists because the Justice Department says so and the media is willing to repeat it.
Finally, there was an interesting discourse yesterday in response to the article about the Muhammed cartoons in which it was noted that those who cling desperately to an ideology that they know is flawed have the most virulent arguments to support their flawed ideology. You might want to check that out, cosmic mojo. By the way, we get it - you're for all animal testing, all the time. The animals love it and it saves your very very important life.
-
SHAC is terrorists
>> definitely don't condone violence such as the ax-handle attack. But, why does one violent act by people affiliated with the group mean that this is a terrorist organization?>>
Terrorists inflict threats, intimidation and violence towards innocent 3rd-party citizens. Like bombing a subway.
SHAC IS terroristic because they bashed in the head of an innocent stock broker who dared sell the stock of the company they don't like. Harassing his 80-tyear-old mother IS a terrorist act. Threatening his dry cleaner IS a terrorist act. Instilling terror in people who have no control over the actions of the company they don't like. They instill terror in people who have nothing to do with the company, but they threaten and harass people with thin, connections to people connected to the company. That IS terrorism. Trying to frighten an entire society for the sake of gaining power.
-
Terrorism, Schmerrorism
<<Trying to frighten an entire society for the sake of gaining power.>>
Hmm, by that definition, I think George W. Bush and his friends are the biggest terrorists around.