: J. Citizen,
: Before you go off on that poor girl, you need to get your facts straight!
+ are you referring to my post of Janauary 12 1999 titled "Yes, ignorant animal rightists do MUCH damage..." Because if so, from your below comments, I seriously doubt that you read that post or any of my posts! I didn't 'go off' on her. I was agreeing with what she wrote and elaborating on her statements.
: First of all, you were contradicting yourself throughout your whole response.
In what way? You don't explain.
If you had read some of my posts you would realise that I have posted the most compelling, referenced and detailed arguments against animal research in the debating room. Everyone else engages in emotional mud-slinging or "claims". I've endeavoured to bring some facts and references into the debate. Though, if I had more time, and could ensure a wider reading audience, the articles would be much more authoritatively written and referenced. But you can find those kinds of articles on the web-sites I advertise.:
www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr (medical research section) and www.werple.net.au/~antiviv
: Surgeons who learn their trade through vivisection are often the incompetents ones that end up hurting their human subjects.
+++ I agree totally and I've said that in past posts. I've even posted up statements from surgeons and former-animal experimenters who say that practising on animals both desensitises surgeons to the suffering of human patients, but also misleads them and is not useful to enhance their skill - often the opposite. If I had the choice, I would never submit my body to a surgeon who had practised on animals because I seriously doubt their sensitivity and ability on humans.
: Subjects, yes that is how they're seen, just like thse animals that were dissected. There are in fact devastating repercussions as a result of animal testing.
+++ I believe I've stated that more clearly and more exhaustively, with references, than anyone else on these posts.
: False and inconclusive facts are merely a few. Are you familiar with pesticides? Of course you are, what human isn't? The only reason animal testing is needed for pesticides is legalities that can occur.
+++ I agree. As I've written again and again. Animal tests are used to make a product look safe for human exposure by testing the product on a whole variety of species. This produces a whole bunch of contradictory results. If a company is sued by human victims, they can then use the neutral or positive animal test results as a legal alibi to say "well, we did the required testing, and it didn't hurt the animals, so we are not guilty of consciously marketing a harmful product. That is what happened in the case of Thalidomide"
: Obviously pesticides are poisonous, animals are being used to find out how toxic! Now that is absolutely ridiculous. They (pesticides) have already been proven to cause genetic defects, be carcinogenic and cause birth defects. What more do you need. Even if exposed to small amounts, humans eventually are harmed. It sounds as if you are the one who is basing their opinion of morals and ethics.
+++ that last sentence is unclear.
We "ignorant animal rightists," use our knowledge and morals, which is what one needs to make a revelant point. Which, by the way, you have failed to accomplish.
+++ If you would like to see the merits of the groups I'm involved with, which promote the works of anti-vivisection doctors, scientists and former animal researchers, check out:
Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research at: www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr
and Guardians - a group exposing vivsection: http://www.werple.net.au/~antiviv
--
McSpotlight: This subject doesn't belong here; please take it to the Anything Else room.
None.
