NationStates Jolt Archive

Outrage on the green (http://www.nhregister.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15000578&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id=517515&rfi=6)

NEW HAVEN — A two-hour animal rights demonstration on the Green Monday sparked outrage instead of sympathy from the public.

"This is the most racist thing I’ve ever seen on the Green. How dare you," roared Philip Goldson, 43, of New Haven at the protest organizers at Church and Chapel streets.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, a national animal rights group, posted giant photographs of people, mostly black Americans, being tortured, sold and killed, next to photographs of animals, including cattle and sheep, being tortured, sold and killed.

"I think it is an apt comparison," said Josh Warchol, 26, of Wallingford, president of the Southern Connecticut Vegetarian Society, which is aligned with PETA

PETA officials said they had hoped to generate dialogue with the shocking photographs.

"We realize these images are hurtful. It’s hard for me to imagine the hurt the animals go through. We should be treating animals according to their own best interests, not to the best interests of people," said Dawn Carr, PETA’s director of special projects.

PETA wants people to stop eating animals, stop using them for clothing, stop forcing animals to entertain people (as in a circus) and stop animal experimentation.

Carr said she doesn’t want animals sold or treated as property either.

The controversial display, which is on a national tour, is intended to drive home PETA’s point.

However, critics said the organization’s demonstration backfired.

One man demanded that the NAACP get involved immediately. Five minutes later, Scot X. Esdaile, president of the state and Greater New Haven chapters of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, arrived at the scene, surveyed the photos and blasted the organizers.

"Once again, black people are being pimped. You used us. You have used us enough," Esdaile said. "Take it down immediately."

"I am a black man! I can’t compare the suffering of these black human beings to the suffering of this cow," said Michael Perkins, 47, of New Haven. He stood in front of a photo of butchered livestock hung next to the photo of two lynched black men dangling before a white mob.

"You can’t compare me to a freaking cow," shouted John Darryl Thompson, 46, of New Haven, inches from Carr’s face. "We don’t care about PETA. You are playing a dangerous game."

Paul Tomaselli, 46, of North Branford took exception to an exhibit that included a photo of a black man being beaten to the ground by a white man with a stick while a white mob gathers.

Next to that photo was one of a man chasing a seal across the snow with a club.

"I think he’s right," said Tomaselli, who is white, in support of Thompson. "To compare people to animals is an unfairness to people."

The display, "Are Animals the New Slaves?" is on a 10-week, 42-city tour that started in early July. Today’s stop: Scranton, Pa., then on to Baltimore and Washington, D.C.

"New Haven is important because of the Amistad. This is a place where slaves were brought. What happened here was very important for abolition. The next great liberation movement is animal liberation," Carr said.

However, the Anti-Defamation League, a national civil rights organization, has publicly condemned PETA’s use of photos comparing human suffering in the Holocaust to animal suffering today; PETA apologized in May for the hurt it caused but stood by the comparisons.

That point of disagreement became a flashpoint in New Haven.

"This is the most hostile audience we’ve had," said PETA volunteer Ben Godwin.

At one point, police hovered at the edge of the Green, across from the demonstration.

Eight of the 12 banners compared the suffering of black Americans to the suffering of cattle, sheep, an elephant, a seal and a rooster. Other banners showed Native Americans exiled from their homes, children in a factory and men in a counter-demonstration against women’s rights.

A photo showing a concentration camp inmate with a number tattooed across his emaciated chest was juxtaposed against a shot of a monkey in a laboratory with a number branded across its chest.

"I have relatives who were in concentration camps," said Alex Reznikoff, 47, of Newtown. "I think this detracts from PETA’s message. It doesn’t make me think about animals at all."


Personally, it DOES make me think about animals- namely, the birdbrains who run PETA.

there are certain groups that make me think that extermination is a valid proposal for some ppl.

(Namely PETA, FOE and other related groups, with the addition of the Feminazis at my uni.)

I wanna see the seal club picture. It's probably hilarious.

I like it. The suffering of animals cannot just be explained away with the phrase "they're animals." Black people were "animals" once, too. The comparison is fitting.

I like it. The suffering of animals cannot just be explained away with the phrase "they're animals." Black people were "animals" once, too. The comparison is fitting.

Unless you're again the one being referred to as an animal.

I'm a Leftie, but PETA are bunch of grass-eating neanderthals in my opinion.

Is the outrage because of “racism” or is it because people dislike being compared to animals?
Some of us seem to have this aversion to even contemplating that we are comparable

Anyways I think it is stupid of them and I love my meat but I got to question some of the motivation behind the outrage

Most African-AMerican friends I have say that much of the community is finally trying to forgive and forget the whole slavery issue. Stunts like this just put that process a few steps back. If something bad happened to your ancestors, and you thought 'it wasn't me,' would you like to see generic representation of your people being portrayed in the fashion?

omg! is this for real?

Unless you're again the one being referred to as an animal.
Um they were reffering to humans ... so in a way we were the ones being referred to as an animal

It's called sybolic, if you haven't heard the term. Let's see: On the left an animal being slaughtered, on the right a black man being hanged. Hmmmm...not too difficult. Especially when the article outright says it.

I agree that the comparison works. For centuries women were seen as nothing but property and even as babies were left to die on hillsides just because they were a burden. I think this works because people constantly use the excuse of not seeing living things as having the right to simply live, but as being property with a $ value.

I think that the point is to show that we are all animals; that we all suffer and feel pain. They are comparing mistreated segments of recent human society to mistreated animals. While I don't agree with the ads, I understand what they're trying to say.
Obviously I value a human life above a rooster's life. But the torture of any living creature is equal, to my eyes. Causing suffering needlessly is always wrong. Unfortunatly, this PETA campaign is causing human suffering. PETA obviously thinks that upsetting people is worth it to get their message across, and I'm not sure if I agree.

This ranks up there with those Greenpeace morons who invaded a stockbroking firm..and had the living hell beaten out of them by justifiably angry and fed up workers who had better things to do.

The lunatic left and then some.

Greenpeace, PETA and a load of others are not only out of touch, they are now more or less out of a "job" (if any of them even hold one down or know how to)...we have not only outgrown them, they are an anachronism.

I still remember the day a Greenpeace activist told me how the USA was launching B52 bombers off the USS Nimitz..and I am still laughing my head off over that one.

And no, the idiot in question had no idea what he had just said...which made it even more hilarious.

Haven't these braindead busybodies anythng better to do?

Peta annoys me. We let them do their stunts, so they should let us eat meat without trying to make us feel guilty.

It's an interesting method, if one thats completely wrong and only vaguely accurate - black people were being used for slavery not, to my knowledge, dinner. I would have thought that they could have put a bit more effort in and found something that actually mirrors their point and not just gone for shock value.

It's an interesting method, if one thats completely wrong and only vaguely accurate - black people were being used for slavery not, to my knowledge, dinner. I would have thought that they could have put a bit more effort in and found something that actually mirrors their point and not just gone for shock value.
But I believe they were comparing torture of animals not the general killing for food.

If that is the case they were showing pictures of humans being tortured next to animals

Seems to be not all that off to me even if I think it was distasteful

Peta annoys me. We let them do their stunts, so they should let us eat meat without trying to make us feel guilty.If you start to feel guilty about what you are eating, maybe you should stop.

TGreenpeace

I almost forgot about them. Another annoyance, that tries to stop whalers from whaling for no good reason.

Why don't they just try to understand that most of the people will never go along with any of them.

If you start to feel guilty about what you are eating, maybe you should stop.

I don't, but I am mad when peole start to say, eating meat is murder and similar things.

The funniest vegan thing I ever saw, was when a really dedicated vegan ate a piece of candy fully knowing that it contained milk.

Greenpeace lost their focus thirty years ago.

Times have changed and they have refused to change with them. I disagree with whaling.

I also disagree with Greenpeace barricading a harbour and blocking essential commercial traffic in order to make a political point, and needlessly complicating the lives and livelihoods of the people they claim to "represent".

Not to mention the sheer idiocy of trying to get in the way of a 120,000 ton bulk carrier that will take three miles to stop......

As yes and don't forget if you are really hungry and run out of meat you can always eat the children. Tender little morsels. Good for manuel labor too! I think they should add new posters with cannibalism since it's happened as recently as the 1940's... And they stopped whalers because they were endangered. Don't you people get that animals like whales are not in an endless supply. We could stop them now or they could stop when the whales became extinct, either way they were gonna be stopped. Get over it find another job

I don't, but I am mad when peole start to say, eating meat is murder and similar things.

The funniest vegan thing I ever saw, was when a really dedicated vegan ate a piece of candy fully knowing that it contained milk.
Amazing how us atheists feel the same way about religious folks (sorry to bring it up but it is so accurate)

Anyways I find PETA distasteful with tactics that will ultimately hurt their cause but some of the motivation for all the anger seems to be a bit misplaced to me

I almost forgot about them. Another annoyance, that tries to stop whalers from whaling for no good reason.

Why don't they just try to understand that most of the people will never go along with any of them.
While I think their tactics are idiotic ... no good reason?

While I think their tactics are idiotic ... no good reason?

They[whales] are being used as food. It's perfectly acceptable to kill for food.

PETA members are also in jail for improper killing and disposal of pets in Virginia. Police found garbage bags full of dogs and cats in a supermarket dumpster.

PETA has a long habit of downgrading humans as no better than animals, but they picked the wrong bone by using blacks. Everything these eco-terrorists do is wrong.

They[whales] are being used as food. It's perfectly acceptable to kill for food.
I don't think your neighbour would agree if you'd shot his dog. "just for food, you know..."

They[whales] are being used as food. It's perfectly acceptable to kill for food.
Yes but when you are pushing extinction we should maybe think about letting them make a comeback and work on alternitive food sources for awhile

Like I said I dont like their tactics

But calling it no good reason does not really seem fitting either

PETA members are also in jail for improper killing and disposal of pets in Virginia. Police found garbage bags full of dogs and cats in a supermarket dumpster.

PETA has a long habit of downgrading humans as no better than animals, but they picked the wrong bone by using blacks. Everything these eco-terrorists do is wrong.
They more then likely “used” them because it was recent enough to have photographs unlike some of the atrocities in our past

Most African-AMerican friends I have say that much of the community is finally trying to forgive and forget the whole slavery issue. Stunts like this just put that process a few steps back. If something bad happened to your ancestors, and you thought 'it wasn't me,' would you like to see generic representation of your people being portrayed in the fashion?

It has been done, I simply shrug it off.

Peta annoys me. We let them do their stunts, so they should let us eat meat without trying to make us feel guilty.

Yeah, and you know, let us make the medicines that none of them are declining to use anyways (freaking hypocrites). If they are so against animal testing, they should stop using anything that has been tested on animals. That means no medical treatment whatsoever. Have fun with that PETA.

Personally, I think PETA's main problem is that while trying to "save" animals, they blatantly show their contempt for human beings, and instead of trying to discuss issues, they shove their opinions down our throats. I know one thing. If I was ever attacked by a Greenpeace group while I was doing my job, I would put a bullet in their ass! Wouldn't lose a wink of sleep either.

I don't think your neighbour would agree if you'd shot his dog. "just for food, you know..."


There'd be no reason for killing his dog in normal cirumstances, so yeah, the neighbor would have a right to be pissed, especially if his dog cost him a lot of money, not to mention the fact that IT IS NOT YOUR DOG!

I would say that if that man were starving, he wouldn't have a problem killing his dog for food.

There'd be no reason for killing his dog in normal cirumstances, so yeah, the neighbor would have a right to be pissed, especially if his dog cost him a lot of money, not to mention the fact that IT IS NOT YOUR DOG!

I would say that if that man were starving, he wouldn't have a problem killing his dog for food.

And it also is illegal.

Calling them eco-terrorists...please the eco-terrorists are the ones destorying everything. just get off my planet please thanks

Calling them eco-terrorists...please the eco-terrorists are the ones destorying everything. just get off my planet please thanks
YOUR planet? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Good one hippie! lol

There'd be no reason for killing his dog in normal cirumstances, so yeah, the neighbor would have a right to be pissed, especially if his dog cost him a lot of money, not to mention the fact that IT IS NOT YOUR DOG!

I would say that if that man were starving, he wouldn't have a problem killing his dog for food.
But is the killing of Whales honestly alleviating starvation or is it for money/pleasure (as in a delicacy rather then a survival necessity)

While I am all for it to an extent if it comes down to extinction or food for pleasure I would rather they back off a bit until the whales can make a bit of a comeback

mmmmm.... animals, so tasty.

animals are food. ALL animals... that includes humans. of course, humans are way smarter than the rest of the kingdom, which is what puts us at the top of the chain. i'm against the torture of livestock, and i'm against the killing of endangered species (whales). i'm not against killing babe to get some tasty bacon.

mmmm.... bacon.

i would like it if people had to kill their own meat. it might give them a little perspective/restraint. might make us less horribly obese as well. less bacon going around.

oh... bacon... orgasmically tasty... i have to go...

People have killed their pets for food. During the 1940's in Eastern Europe and yes they also ate their fellow human beings.

And as for the planet thing yes I mean that literally. Actually it was a reference to every Monotheists. If you really believe you are going to be with your god after you die then do it sooner rather than later. If this isn't your home go there and off mine.

I don't find this campaign very offensive at all. Tasteless, sure, but it gets their point across, and it has no intent of being racist. The campaign's message is not that African-Americans are animals, but rather that animals are being disrespected and violated in the same way that slaves were in the past. And in the collective minds of PETA, people and animals are equals, anyway, so it has nothing to do with inferiority.

There'd be no reason for killing his dog in normal cirumstances, so yeah, the neighbor would have a right to be pissed, especially if his dog cost him a lot of money, not to mention the fact that IT IS NOT YOUR DOG!

I would say that if that man were starving, he wouldn't have a problem killing his dog for food.
Do you have a reason to kill a whale in normal circunstances? Is it your whale?

I think it's a good comparison. Although I suppose it could be seen as racist, it really really isn't.

Humans are not at all superior to animals. Sure, I eat meat. I like meat. I'd eat human meat too if it was available. I hear it tastes like pork.

I used to support PETA's efforts to stop the abuse of animals until recently. Now they appear to have discovered drugs. I'm still going to eat meat. I am programmed to. I haven't been programmed to ba able to stand a no-meat diet. Humans eat meat. We always have since the days vegetarians starved to death while everyone else got fat off of meat. They are using racism to stop people from doing one thing people are programmed to like to do: eat meat. Sreiously, they need to get with the times. This isn't an age where you can use racism to make a point. It just isn't.

In all honesty PETA's message isn't necvessarily that humans should not eat meat, but that the way it is done in today's society is wrong. Mass produced hormone injected meat is not the way it was meant to be. I mean just look how mad cow happened feeding cows infect chickens. I don't think thats right

Animals are not the same as people. The life of a whole species is not worth even the most wretched human. I think Peta members should put there money where their mouth is an volenteer for medical exparimentation or to be eaten.


I like it. The suffering of animals cannot just be explained away with the phrase "they're animals." Black people were "animals" once, too. The comparison is fitting.

Animals are not the same as people. The life of a whole species is not worth even the most wretched human. I think Peta members should put there money where their mouth is an volenteer for medical exparimentation or to be eaten.
And yet people ARE technicaly animals :p

If I ordered it and the waiter brought it then, Yes it is my godamn whale.
MMMMMMMMMMMMMM Whale. Whale is yummy had some in Japan many years ago.


Do you have a reason to kill a whale in normal circunstances? Is it your whale?

And yet people ARE technicaly animals :p
And plants live and reproduce...so how are you going to live if you dont want to kill living things for food or to find better medicines, etc...

When animals can ask for the vote then they can have rights. While humans are technially animals there is a huge disciction.

And yet people ARE technicaly animals :p

Animals are not the same as people. The life of a whole species is not worth even the most wretched human. I think Peta members should put there money where their mouth is an volenteer for medical exparimentation or to be eaten.

Human beings may be on the top, but let me paint a picture for you.
"It is like the human species is in the top of an apartment building. They are in the penthouse. But in order to keep building the penthouse up everyday they take 200 bricks from the bottom of the apartment building. What happens when the building falls?" Daniel Quinn

On top doesn't mean detached is my point. What you do to animals and the environment will affect us.

And plants live and reproduce...so how are you going to live if you dont want to kill living things for food or to find better medicines, etc...
Where did I ever say that? I am a omnivore but I can be such and dislike the un-necessary torture of animals as well

Animals are not the same as people. The life of a whole species is not worth even the most wretched human.
So you'd much rather see a child molester survive at the expense of the entire dog species?
Interesting value system you have there.

When animals can ask for the vote then they can have rights. While humans are technially animals there is a huge disciction.
So infants cant have rights? they at this point in time can not ask to vote

How a bout signing monkies ... I am pretty sure one could sign its wish to vote ... does that grant it any rights?

Where did I ever say that? I am a omnivore but I can be such and dislike the un-necessary torture of animals as well
True, I just quoted the last person to post...sorry about that...

They are animals, I will hunt kill and eat them as often as I can.


Human beings may be on the top, but let me paint a picture for you.
"It is like the human species is in the top of an apartment building. They are in the penthouse. But in order to keep building the penthouse up everyday they take 200 bricks from the bottom of the apartment building. What happens when the building falls?" Daniel Quinn

On top doesn't mean detached is my point. What you do to animals and the environment will affect us.

They are animals, I will hunt kill and eat them as often as I can.

I'm sorry I don't understand. Are you talking about animals or humans?

in time an infant will speak will the monkey? When he does monkey comes off the menu.


So infants cant have rights? they at this point in time can not ask to vote

How a bout signing monkies ... I am pretty sure one could sign its wish to vote ... does that grant it any rights?

The people at PETA seem badly out of touch with the reality of the food chain. Animals eat other animals. Humans are just technologically sophisticated animals with opposable thumbs, and evolution has seen us make our way to the top of the food chain (generally speaking, of course. if I'm alone, unarmed on an ice floe with a polar bear, I think he's going to climb to the rung above me). If the animals weren't being eaten by us, they'd be eaten by each other, so unless PETA proposes to make all the lions and tigers and bears into vegans too, then their campaigning boils down to "we should deny our nature and break with millions of years of evolution." Apparently homo sapiens should be the only animal on the planet to deprive itself of the full range of its food source. We are omnivores. It's why we have incisors and canines-- we're built for eating animal flesh. Pretending otherwise is just obtuse. Moreover, trying to force your own sense of guilt for a morally neutral act onto others demonstrates immaturity. Animals eating each other for food is morally neutral, unless you want to condemn every wild carnivore on Earth, too, and that would just be stupid.

That said, I do disagree with the continued practice of whaling because the people who go out in ships with harpoons could be eating more readily available meat back on land. Whales are endangered and it doesn't even really makes sense to hunt to extinction a species that threatens you, because they could be an important part of the ecosystem. Whales don't even threaten us. I think the only people who should be hunting whales are the northern indigenous people who've been hunting them for thousands of years for lack of a more readily available food source. At least they understand the importance of conservation.

And my belief in the moral neutrality of eating animals doesn't mean that I think animals have no rights. I don't think they should be subjected to cruelty while they're alive, and I think that the methods used to slaughter food animals should be humane, simply because how we treat them says something about how we respect life in general. Gratuitous cruelty is simply degenerate, there's no good reason for it. Go ahead, eat cow meat. But do show some humility, treat the cow with some respect while it's alive. Minus an opposable thumb and it could have been some other species eating us, and I don't honestly believe that any other animal would torture its livestock.

I am a member of PETA, but that does not mean I agree with all the tactics used by my peers in the organization. Although I would like people understand why I choose not to eat meat & dairy, wear skins/fur/leather and use any products tested on animals.... I do believe that people should have the freedom and right to choose. When I have children they will be bought up 'normally' untill they are old enough to choose their own path.

Please do not judge us all based of the actions of a few. Whilst some of us seems to care more about animals then people, most care equally for both. I do my fair share of human rights work also *grins*. I am generally just a left wing tree hugging hippy :p

in time an infant will speak will the monkey? When he does monkey comes off the menu.

So mute people who only use sign language don't have rights? What about talking parrots?

Unfortunately it is not legal to hunt and eat humans so you figure it out.I'm sorry I don't understand. Are you talking about animals or humans?

in time an infant will speak will the monkey? When he does monkey comes off the menu.

Some can sign. An ape or monkey cannot speak as we do because they do not have the vocal equipment to do so.

Are you suggesting that mute people aren't really people? That if they have to communicate by signing, they don't count?

I am a member of PETA, but that does not mean I agree with all the tactics used by my peers in the organization. Although I would like people understand why I choose not to eat meat & dairy, wear skins/fur/leather and use any products tested on animals....

So you never take any type of medication whatsoever? You will never have a medical procedure of any type?

John Wayne Gacy vs Cocker Spaniels ....Gacy. The only time I'd pick an animal over a human would be if it involved Hillary Clinton.

So you'd much rather see a child molester survive at the expense of the entire dog species?
Interesting value system you have there.

Mutes can write a note.


Some can sign. An ape or monkey cannot speak as we do because they do not have the vocal equipment to do so.

Are you suggesting that mute people aren't really people? That if they have to communicate by signing, they don't count?

Until the vice president of Peta US stops taking animal insulin and dies they are a house of hipocrits.



I am a member of PETA, but that does not mean I agree with all the tactics used by my peers in the organization. Although I would like people understand why I choose not to eat meat & dairy, wear skins/fur/leather and use any products tested on animals.... I do believe that people should have the freedom and right to choose. When I have children they will be bought up 'normally' untill they are old enough to choose their own path.

Please do not judge us all based of the actions of a few. Whilst some of us seems to care more about animals then people, most care equally for both. I do my fair share of human rights work also *grins*. I am generally just a left wing tree hugging hippy :p

Mutes can write a note.

Not if they are children who have not yet learned to write.

Mutes can write a note.

What about illiterate mutes?

I wanna see the seal club picture. It's probably hilarious.

Come to Norway... I will show you personly..;) :D

Go ahead and eat them. :rolleyes:

What about illiterate mutes?

The people at PETA seem badly out of touch with the reality of the food chain. Animals eat other animals. Humans are just technologically sophisticated animals with opposable thumbs, and evolution has seen us make our way to the top of the food chain.

I can't speak for the rest of PETA but personally I see it that humans have advanced far enough to make the choice between eating meat and leading a vegeterian/vegan diet. We can weigh out the benifits and negatives of eating and not eating meat and decide for ourselves.

And my belief in the moral neutrality of eating animals doesn't mean that I think animals have no rights. I don't think they should be subjected to cruelty while they're alive, and I think that the methods used to slaughter food animals should be humane
I am very glad you share this view. Lots of people don't care where their food comes from and I was worried about that even before I turned to 'the dark side' :)

When I have children they will be bought up 'normally' untill they are old enough to choose their own path.
Does that mean you'll feed them meat until they say they don't want to?

I am generally just a left wing tree hugging hippy :p
(shudders uncontrollably and vomits)

Christ, these people are an embarrassment to the left.

I care about people, not bloody animals. These people might care about cute mammals, but what about other life forms?I doubt you'd see a PETA member defending the rights of insects.

Christ, these people are an embarrassment to the left.

I care about people, not bloody animals. These people might care about cute mammals, but what about other life forms?I doubt you'd see a PETA member defending the rights of insects.
Then you better take a better look (I am not supporting them but just because you "havent seen it" does not mean they dont do it

http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=121

I´m too tired to read all this, but this i swhat I think:

To compare humans to animals is ok. At first I agreed that it was unneccessary to show pictures of people in the holocaust, but then again: In concentration camps, people were killed by a factory progress. Today, we have factories killing thousands, millions, of animals every day.
Isn´t that worse? Hitler killed six million people, because they had a different belief, were gay etc., absolutely horrible (I agree of course). Humans kill hundred of millions of animals for profit and eating, tasty (I disagree). Sure, meat is an important part of our diet, but the ways the animals are killed aren´t. The humans during the holocaust were gassed (most of them at least), a fairly painless way to go. Their bodies were then burned (mostly). The way the animals go:

"Slaughterhouse process
The slaughterhouse process differs by species and region. (Kosher and halal religious laws prescribe specific methods of slaughter that differ from those described below.)


A cow restrained for stunning just prior to slaughter.Animals are received by truck or rail from a ranch, farm, or feedlot.
Animals are herded into holding pens (see Judas goat).
Animals receive a preslaughter inspection.
Animal are rendered insensible (unconscious) by stunning (method varies)
Animals are hung by hind legs on processing line.
A main artery is cut, the animal's blood drains out and it dies.
Animal's hide/skin/plumage is removed.
Carcass is inspected and graded by a government inspector for quality and safety. (by the Food Safety Inspection Service in the US, and CFIA in Canada)
Carcass is cut apart and the body parts separated.
Meat cuts are quickly chilled to prevent the growth of microorganisms and to reduce meat deterioration while the meat awaits market demand for its distribution.
The remaining carcass may be further processed to extract any residual traces of meat, usually termed mechanically recovered meat, which may be used for human or animal consumption.
Material not destined for human consumption is sent to a rendering plant.
The meat is transported to distribution centers that distribute to local retail markets."
-From Wikipedia.org

Of course, step 4 sometimes falter, making the animal wake up as it´s throat is being slit. Also, step 7, the part with the skin, is sometimes done right after step 4 to kill it while being boiled , during which pigs sometimes wake up.
Compare that: Would you rather be gassed to death, and your remains burned or get boiled alive until you are dead, then your body is torn apart and sold, the part that are unsellable gets ground down to make sausage or feed animals. Personally, I think I prefer being gassed.

BTW, PETA (http://mtd.com/tasty/)

So you never take any type of medication whatsoever? You will never have a medical procedure of any type?

Yes, I don't even take a parasetomol/aspirin for headaches or anything. There are a few brands that are not tested on animals out there though which I would use if I could be bothered to go out there and find them.

I can't speak for the future though. Maybe I will get very ill, need the drugs to keep me alive and go against my current morals and principles. I have never been put in that position though so I don't know how I would react.

Then you better take a better look (I am not supporting them but just because you "havent seen it" does not mean they dont do it

http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=121

Jesus Christ...........what's next? Ban breathing due to all the dead micro-organisms?

Christ, these people are an embarrassment to the left.

I care about people, not bloody animals. These people might care about cute mammals, but what about other life forms?I doubt you'd see a PETA member defending the rights of insects.

Although I am not an official member of PETA, since I was very young yes I did defend them, yelling at my friends to stop steppping on ants and such.

Jesus Christ...........what's next? Ban breathing due to all the dead micro-organisms?
Hey you were the one that said they don’t do it and were trying to paint them as only opportunists that care about visually appealing things

Proven not true

I don’t know where they are going next but at least they are being consistent (mostly … as with all groups fucked up members do things against their mission statement)

Yes, I don't even take a parasetomol/aspirin for headaches or anything. There are a few brands that are not tested on animals out there though which I would use if I could be bothered to go out there and find them.

I can't speak for the future though. Maybe I will get very ill, need the drugs to keep me alive and go against my current morals and principles. I have never been put in that position though so I don't know how I would react.
You best learn because if you are incapacitated your family may need to make the decision for you … if you don’t want medicines that have been tested on animals you have to let them know so if you are non responsive they will make the decision that you want .

In concentration camps, people were killed by a factory progress. Today, we have factories killing thousands, millions, of animals every day.
Isn´t that worse?

Nope.

Next question?

Hey you were the one that said they don’t do it and were trying to paint them as only opportunists that care about visually appealing things

Proven not true



Perhaps you didn't notice it, but that was me admitting my ignorance.

You best learn because if you are incapacitated your family may need to make the decision for you … if you don’t want medicines that have been tested on animals you have to let them know so if you are non responsive they will make the decision that you want .

Thats true. I am sure my fiancé would have a hard time deciding, she is sitting here and says that she knows my view on the whole animal testing, but is selfish and would likely give me the drugs so I would live. I would not be angry at any member of my family for doing something like that though.... just shows they want me around :rolleyes:

The thing is:
cows are killed for food. We have to kill them to eat them.
African Americans were lnched and left to rot. No using their bodies for anything. No surival instinct. Just pure hate.
Jews were either gassed, shot, or burned alive because Hitler was crazy. No one ate them or used their skin. No survival instinct. Just pure hate.

There's a difference between killing for food and killing just for the sake of killing. I'm for killing for food, but against "hunting" for "sport".

PETA needs better examples for comparisons than using hate to make survival instinct seem bad.

John Wayne Gacy vs Cocker Spaniels ....Gacy. The only time I'd pick an animal over a human would be if it involved Hillary Clinton.
Hmmm....fellow NSer's, methinks we have a troll in our midsts. Refer to the sign outside his cave:
-------------------------------------------
l...................Please don't feed.................l
l...................pet or engage in..................l
l...................conversation with................l
l.......................the Troll.........................l
--------------------------------------------
l...........l
l...........l
l...........l

The thing is:
cows are killed for food. We have to kill them to eat them.
African Americans were lnched and left to rot. No using their bodies for anything. No surival instinct. Just pure hate.
Jews were either gassed, shot, or burned alive because Hitler was crazy. No one ate them or used their skin. No survival instinct. Just pure hate.

There's a difference between killing for food and killing just for the sake of killing. I'm for killing for food, but against "hunting" for "sport".

PETA needs better examples for comparisons than using hate to make survival instinct seem bad.
For some of them but all in all to me it sounded like they were protesting animal Torture not just killing for food (there was some of the other but the quote emphasis seemed to be on torture)

The thing is:
cows are killed for food. We have to kill them to eat them.
African Americans were lnched and left to rot. No using their bodies for anything. No surival instinct. Just pure hate.
Jews were either gassed, shot, or burned alive because Hitler was crazy. No one ate them or used their skin. No survival instinct. Just pure hate.

There's a difference between killing for food and killing just for the sake of killing. I'm for killing for food, but against "hunting" for "sport".

PETA needs better examples for comparisons than using hate to make survival instinct seem bad.

But PETA is not just talking about food, and yes the other sources aside from meat anyway. There is also killing for clothing and such again when there are other products.

And I doubt Hitler did much of the killings himself he gave the orders. So you can say yes the soldiers did it for survival. Same with the slaves. A lot did not hate them, just used them to survive better.

Jews were either gassed, shot, or burned alive because Hitler was crazy. No one ate them or used their skin. No survival instinct. Just pure hate.
Just one point (and I know I'm quibbling here) - the Nazis did use their skins. Made leather out of it for things like lampshades and the like. Also render some down to use their fat for soap.

I recognize PETA's technical correctness; however, those points are lost in them being giant douches

Yes, I don't even take a parasetomol/aspirin for headaches or anything. There are a few brands that are not tested on animals out there though which I would use if I could be bothered to go out there and find them.

Every medication comes out of basic science research - which involves animals. While you may find a medication (non-FDA-approved) that has never been, itself, tested on animals, it still came out of research involving animals.

If you live in the US, any FDA-approved medication (so anything that has been tested at all really) has been tested on animals. It is part of protocol with FDA testing.

I can't speak for the future though. Maybe I will get very ill, need the drugs to keep me alive and go against my current morals and principles. I have never been put in that position though so I don't know how I would react.

The truth is, you cannot stay alive without killing animals. If you want any type of medicine at all, animals have been killed. If you eat meat, animals have obviously been killed. If you eat vegetables, animals have been killed in the harvesting process and by the repellants (even in organic gardens) used to repel pests. If you build a house, animals die. If you drive a car enough, you will eventually hit an animal. If you don't, whatever vegetables and vitamins you eat come in on trucks/trains/planes that sometimes kill animals.

There is no way to live without killing animals. You can certainly (and I would certainly advocate) only using products/eating foods that do not cause animals needless suffering, but there is no way around killing animals.


A cow restrained for stunning just prior to slaughter.Animals are received by truck or rail from a ranch, farm, or feedlot.
Animals are herded into holding pens (see Judas goat).
Animals receive a preslaughter inspection.
Animal are rendered insensible (unconscious) by stunning (method varies)
Animals are hung by hind legs on processing line.
A main artery is cut, the animal's blood drains out and it dies

Anything after this point is irrelevant as it is carried out on a dead animal. It sounds icky, but has nothing to do with cruelty.

The only part of this that I think can be seen to be cruel is the fact that many (and I know that this is not all) slaughterhouses kill the animals by bleeding out. As it was explained to me, this is because it causes lactic acid buildup in the muscles - making the meat taste better.

Now, I have seen this process. It is incredibly disturbing, and not all places do it. Also, different animals are treated differently. With cows, sometimes they are killed by a direct shot to the head, then bled out after they have already died (that, I haven't seen).

The disturbing (and cruel) part is that they do it in front of other animals, and they want the animal to die by bleeding, as opposed to something quicker. I would certainly advocate changing that process so that, instead of incapacitating them, they are actually killed prior to bleeding, like they sometimes do with cows.

.

I recognize PETA's technical correctness; however, those points are lost in them being giant douches
Lol that I can agree with :p

Janists wear mask to prevent that and sweep where they walk lest they step on an insect.

Jesus Christ...........what's next? Ban breathing due to all the dead micro-organisms?

Because I think ANY human is worth more than ANY animal I'm a troll?


Hmmm....fellow NSer's, methinks we have a troll in our midsts. Refer to the sign outside his cave:
-------------------------------------------
l...................Please don't feed.................l
l...................pet or engage in..................l
l...................conversation with................l
l.......................the Troll.........................l
--------------------------------------------
l...........l
l...........l
l...........l

Because I think ANY human is worth more than ANY animal I'm a troll?
You did not say ANY you excepted Hillary Clinton, which does have a rather trolish feel when up till this point there was no mention of her.

I think the main point I am trying to make (about my own beliefs yay vanity!) is that I do not intenionally kill/harm any animal, including humans.

I do however make mistakes, I am sure I have trod on my fair share of insects although I try to avoid when possible.

Really what I strive for is the least possible amount of suffering. It would be impossible to stop everyone eating meat, wearing fur or to stop animals getting hurt/killed by combine harvesters.... but there is no harm in reducing the numbers is there?

PETA is a bunch of terrorists. That is all I have to say about them.

PETA is a bunch of terrorists. That is all I have to say about them.
Ehhh they usually more rely on disgust then terror … at least usualy

PETA is a bunch of terrorists. That is all I have to say about them.
Thank you for your insightful comment there. I can really see how long and hard you thought before you typed your post.

As with any large organization there are factions that do things which the main body/memberbase of PETA does not approve of in the name of PETA.

Of course if you can tell me the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter I will give you a cookie.

"Once again, black people are being pimped."

The president of the NAACP saying that is just mind-blowingly hilarious.

Anyway, I gave up the animal rights thing a while ago (now it's just bird rights for me, gotta focus). Still, I think this exhibit has merit. While I'm far from a PETA fanatic, things like this.. Well, they SHOULD make people think, not set off a knee-jerk reaction.

"You're comparing me to a cow, ohnoes!" It's generally that kind of thinking that prompts animal-rights activists to go to such lengths.

But since I've thrown in my two cents, I'm gonna duck out of this thread. These kinda debates usually just make me angry.

Oh, as for the birdbrain comment: It's being found now that some birds are quite intelligent. So there. :P

Of course if you can tell me the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter I will give you a cookie.

Ooh, ooh, I know! Point of view!

What kinda cookie is it? :D

What kinda cookie is it? :D

Any type you want, might end up green and moldy before it gets to you though. :p

go to www.petakillsanimals.com and www.consumerfreedom.com

go to www.petakillsanimals.com and www.consumerfreedom.com
That first one seems as bad as PETA itself

Any type you want, might end up green and moldy before it gets to you though. :p

Hmm... A macaroon. :D

I'm not a big fan of her's. She's the reason I moved from NY..I'll not mention her in this thread again.

You did not say ANY you excepted Hillary Clinton, which does have a rather trolish feel when up till this point there was no mention of her.

I'm not a big fan of her's. She's the reason I moved from NY..I'll not mention her in this thread again.
Its fine just seemed out of the blue (and that makes the sensors tingle just throwing out a non topic person and why you hold her in lower regards then the rest of humanity not to mention animals ) … I don’t care for her either

go to www.petakillsanimals.com and www.consumerfreedom.com

I have read both of these sites before, and yes they are rather nasty (I would recommend anyone who is considering becoming a PETA activist read what the sites have to say to get the view from the other side of the fence).

Personally I do not donate to PETA as I like to know where my money goes. I would much rather give it to a local shelter and see the results... see what its being spent on. A couple of hours volenteer work does wonders as well, donating time is often much better then donating money (and helps the shelters cut down costs).

Just one point (and I know I'm quibbling here) - the Nazis did use their skins. Made leather out of it for things like lampshades and the like. Also render some down to use their fat for soap.

Correct.

Outrage on the green (http://www.nhregister.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15000578&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id=517515&rfi=6)
...
Personally, it DOES make me think about animals- namely, the birdbrains who run PETA.
Yeah, they're not politically correct enough. :rolleyes:

Ok I gave that that website about PETA kills a chance until they went to the other extreme. "THEY'RE AFTER YOUR CHILDREN". It just reminds me too much of the times when I was younger and people constantly wanted an explanation as to why I was not Christian, being convinced I had to have been corrupted by someone else. maybe it was Satan himself. Honestly read the facts, know the sources, and form your own opinion. I now think that PETA kills site is sponsored by the economically and advertising powerful industries that PETA attacks. I think the animals were humanely euthanized and some possibly beyond saving. I volunteered at a kill shelter and learned all about it. And by the way what the hell does spaying/neutering have to do with anything? They keep mentioning on that site...

Although I am not an official member of PETA, since I was very young yes I did defend them, yelling at my friends to stop steppping on ants and such.

I still save slugs and worms that are heading out onto busy roads, which I started as a kid in school, I remember when I was 7 I formed the worm "rescue club" with my friends
-----
Anyways
I think my two cent are that PETA are not portraying any specific race as equal to animals and therefore lower than other races, but rather they're promoting animals as equal to all humans in deserving respect.

I'm pretty sure (correct me if I'm wrong) that they follow the philosophy of Peter Singer that says that if anything that is capable of feeling pain, we have a moral obligation as people who can think and choose, to not cause that thing unnecessary pain. They have found evidence that creatures as simple (i hate that word but it'll do for now) as earthworms experience pain, so therefore it is our moral imperative not to cause it.

I find it interesting how people laugh off the pain of others here.

While I don't agree with the shock tactics of an organisation like PETA, I think in one sense it would be interesting if everyone had to kill their own meat.

Then again at least with centralised slaughterhouses there is a chance for regulation.

just some musings

Plants feel pain. So what do you eat?
I still save slugs and worms that are heading out onto busy roads, which I started as a kid in school, I remember when I was 7 I formed the worm "rescue club" with my friends
-----
Anyways
I think my two cent are that PETA are not portraying any specific race as equal to animals and therefore lower than other races, but rather they're promoting animals as equal to all humans in deserving respect.

I'm pretty sure (correct me if I'm wrong) that they follow the philosophy of Peter Singer that says that if anything that is capable of feeling pain, we have a moral obligation as people who can think and choose, to not cause that thing unnecessary pain. They have found evidence that creatures as simple (i hate that word but it'll do for now) as earthworms experience pain, so therefore it is our moral imperative not to cause it.

I find it interesting how people laugh off the pain of others here.

While I don't agree with the shock tactics of an organisation like PETA, I think in one sense it would be interesting if everyone had to kill their own meat.

Then again at least with centralised slaughterhouses there is a chance for regulation.

just some musings

Plants feel pain. So what do you eat?
Oh they do? care to give sources?

Plants feel pain? As far as I know they do not have a nerve system persay. Also if you rip off a piece of grass without removing the whole root system it will grow back. Also you can eat apples, bananas and etc without killing a tree. Unnecessary pain also means if you have to kill to do it swiflty and with as little pain as possible. Thats the point.

I'm pretty sure (correct me if I'm wrong) that they follow the philosophy of Peter Singer that says that if anything that is capable of feeling pain, we have a moral obligation as people who can think and choose, to not cause that thing unnecessary pain.

I would agree with this.

However, I don't think that the advancement of medical technology is "unnecessary." I don't think that proper nutrition is "unnecessary".

And I do think that since we have to, necessarily, kill to survive, we should use every small bit of resource we can get out of a given creature so that less have to die. Thus, using those animals that we kill for meat for clothing as well - no problem.

Of course if you can tell me the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter I will give you a cookie.

It's purely based on perception. For one group a terrorist is a freedom fighter as it help's thier cause. For another group they are terrorists as that group is against thier cause. No matter which way it is looked at, they are a group who are privately funded that are fighting for thier cause, reguardless of if thier cause is just or not. Hope this answers your question.

I would agree with this.

However, I don't think that the advancement of medical technology is "unnecessary." I don't think that proper nutrition is "unnecessary".

And I do think that since we have to, necessarily, kill to survive, we should use every small bit of resource we can get out of a given creature so that less have to die. Thus, using those animals that we kill for meat for clothing as well - no problem.

Yeah the arguments he used to back it up were things like

"we can survive without animal products - food and clothing for instance"
"we can use alternative procedures to test drug efficacy, however while mammals are closer as models to humans, they are by no means the same, and it has happened that drugs that have been approved in animal testing turn out to have terrible effects on humans (i think thalidomide was one of these)
also he attacks the pointlessness of some extremely cruel tests - like the draize eye drop test, and the ld50 test (lethal dose to over 50% of the sample), both of which use fairly amateur statistics and if improved could use far less animals in attaining a similarly reliable result.

Cause he's a philosopher his main job to pose questions, and two things really stood out for me
1 - why do people get so appalled seeing a kitten being experimented on, yet calmly accept that a rat will be (which has just as much pain receptors in it)

2 - which would you choose to test on? (maybe this should be another thread - feel free to steal ppl)
a) a live animal that can feel pain, with no anaesthetic
b) a human in a vegetative state i.e. braindead
bearing in mind that the human is a far superior model for testing drugs on (cause it's like ...a human... :D)

I don't like eco-terrorists like PETA. That organization scares me with their fear tactics and their trying to make me feel guilty for eating one of the things our bodies were designed for: meat. PETA kills to protest killing? Isn't that like nazis protesting anti-semetism? I guess both hate competition.

PETA are domestic terrorists, like ELF and KKK. They all use crime to scare people into submission. They are like the al-quieda of environmentalism. Don't :mp5: to protest :mp5: . PETA should try non-violent methods of protest. Non-violence made India a seperate nation and gave African Americans rights in a time where racism was the norm. Arson is violent. Death threats aren't non-violent because they threaten violence. PETA should be shut down and its members prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If you want to protest killing animals, don't kill them yourself. You'll be making you your own enemy.

When you fight evil with evil, evil always wins. When you fight evil using good, good always triumphs in the end.

Avika

What the bleep are you talking about? This thread was based on a demonstration with posters, it's possible someone may have goten a papercut, but aside from that there was no violence. jeez do you live in a bomb shelter or what? Seriously are you ok? And I think you are confusing PETA with the ALF. PETA has a mission statement that no animals are to be harmed human or otherwise.

I like PETA. I realise they go over the top sometimes, but who doesn't?

Okay, that's not a very good argument.

If you're going to eat an animal, kill it quickly. There are farms out there where the animals die slowly and painfully, or they're not fed right, it's horrible. Animals can feel.

'Pigs have the mentality of a three year old child.'

I think that little tidbit of information makes hanging a pig at least the tinsiest bit unjust or cruel, doesn't it?

One more thing, since when were we not animals?

If P-E-T-A doesn't spell PETA, I apologize and retract my insulting opinion. If P-E-T-A spells PETA, I regret nothing.

If P-E-T-A doesn't spell PETA, I apologize and retract my insulting opinion. If P-E-T-A spells PETA, I regret nothing.
ok now I am confused wtf

I regret nothing.

I regret nothing.
I got that but you make one statement that did not match the argument then pick a rather nonsensical way of saying I meant what I said ... seems rather silly

"we can use alternative procedures to test drug efficacy, however while mammals are closer as models to humans, they are by no means the same, and it has happened that drugs that have been approved in animal testing turn out to have terrible effects on humans (i think thalidomide was one of these)

And this simply demonstrates his ignorance of the field. Animals are close models to humans and we have to use them before humans or many more humans would die needlessly. Meanwhile, when testing on animals, we can do it in a controlled environment, minimizing pain and distress, and ensuring that we can actually get statistical results without the possibility of killing thousands of people.

also he attacks the pointlessness of some extremely cruel tests - like the draize eye drop test, and the ld50 test (lethal dose to over 50% of the sample), both of which use fairly amateur statistics and if improved could use far less animals in attaining a similarly reliable result.

Extremely cruel tests are not allowed in standard research. In order to get approval for a given protocol, we have to document every instance in which the animal might be harmed - and provide justification for that harm. We have to do everything we can in the least painful way possible. If anesthetic will not be used, we have to have an incredibly clear reason that it cannot be used. Otherwise, it must be provided. If it is not necessary for the experiment to sacrifice the animals, they must be provided for for the rest of their natural lives.

These animals are kept in aerated cages, with food and water constantly provided. If necessary, they are provided with exercise outside of the cage. They are kept on a strict, regulated light-dark cycle (breaking this without a damn good reason is a big no-no). Hell, these animals are treated better than most people.

1 - why do people get so appalled seeing a kitten being experimented on, yet calmly accept that a rat will be (which has just as much pain receptors in it)

Good question, but the answer is obvious. More people keep cats as pets - while rats are seen as vermin. Cats are cute and fuzzy, while most people do not think that rats are.

Is it a good reason? Not really, but human beings aren't always the most rational in the world. In the scientific world, rats are used more often than cats partially for the "cute and fuzzy" reason, but moreso because we have specified strains of rat that we can control - thus, more controlled experiments.

2 - which would you choose to test on? (maybe this should be another thread - feel free to steal ppl)
a) a live animal that can feel pain, with no anaesthetic
b) a human in a vegetative state i.e. braindead
bearing in mind that the human is a far superior model for testing drugs on (cause it's like ...a human... :D)

Actually, a human who was braindead would not be superior to an animal in a vast majority of tests, as a braindead human would not have the same responses to things that an alive person or animal would have. Behavioral responses cannot be looked at, thus nothing which is measured as such could be used. That means no pain studies, no studies on diseases that affect motor function (ie. Parkinson's), no studies on many diseases actually. On top of that, there is the fact that we cannot breed people who are braindead. Thus, we could not breed people with a particular disease or genetic disorder in order to test drugs for it. We can do this with mice. We cannot create people with genes knocked out, knocked in, or make transgenic models in people. We cannot have the type of large-scale controlled studies that are necessary to get results.

In other words, the question is stupid - it is more evidence of someone completely ignorant of the facts. On top of that, he specifically brings in the idea of an animal used with no anesthetic - when any experimentation that proves painful to the animal done without anesthetic has to be justified with standards that are rather hard to meet.

Simple experiment you can do at home. Take any reasonably healthy plant place it away from a light source (eg window). Place a grow bulb directly over the plant. (This is to remove the effects of phototropism). Now place a non illuminating heat source in contact with the plant. The plant will grow away from the heat source. Electricity will work also. If the plant can't "feel" why does respond to the stimulas? Just because it moves more slowly doesn't mean its not trying to avoid pain. more here (http://clasdean.la.asu.edu/news/aspirin.htm)


Oh they do? care to give sources?

Peta HAS advocted arson and supported arsonists in the past.


Avika

What the bleep are you talking about? This thread was based on a demonstration with posters, it's possible someone may have goten a papercut, but aside from that there was no violence. jeez do you live in a bomb shelter or what? Seriously are you ok? And I think you are confusing PETA with the ALF. PETA has a mission statement that no animals are to be harmed human or otherwise.

who hangs pigs anymore?

I like PETA. I realise they go over the top sometimes, but who doesn't?

Okay, that's not a very good argument.

If you're going to eat an animal, kill it quickly. There are farms out there where the animals die slowly and painfully, or they're not fed right, it's horrible. Animals can feel.

'Pigs have the mentality of a three year old child.'

I think that little tidbit of information makes hanging a pig at least the tinsiest bit unjust or cruel, doesn't it?

One more thing, since when were we not animals?

If someone compared me to a cow, and showed pictures of me being abused, I'd torch the photos and stomp on them.

PETA isn't too smart, is it?

http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=472

haha - t-shirt hell is excellent.

Dempub - I accept your point, but you still ahven't properlöy answered the question - you've just given examples where a huiman in a vegetative state is not of use for behavioural and response tests. I agree, but as you mentioned where possible animals are under anaesthetic, so doesn't that also rule them out of behavioural and response tests? so surely rather than sacrificing an innocent animal why not use a vegetative human in these instances - the model is far better than an unconscious animal?

Secondly I agree that the measures are stringent to get lab animals - they're very stringent here in Ireland anyway. But I also know that when an animal has been experimented on benignly, it isn't kept for the rest of its natural life. In a zoology course we used a lab rat to measure exothermic heat by putting it in a copper container and surrounding the container with a known amount of ice and then the water that melted over time, minus the natural amount of water melt etc, etc. But the rat was completely unharmed, but the lab still killed it afterwards (albeit humanely) - simply because it was now contaminated with the outside world and would not be accepted back into the animal house, because it could contaminate the sterile animals there (which are raised in perfectly sterile environments)

When you said that the most stringent of requirements were those for using animals in which they could not be anaesthetised, one of the main reasons for this were experiments like Harry Harlow's (with his infamous "iron maiden" and "rape rack" experiments - that man was a monster - no information on nelgect was worth the absolute torture those monkeys went through) and most importantly experiments in the University of Pennsylvania where they simulated brain damage in car crash victims where they bashed in the heads of baboons in completely unsterile and abusive conditions. The latter condition was only made public by PETA, who then did go above the law by not releasing information on the people who stole the tapes showing the abuse.

So in a way we have them to thank for our stringent procedures and long may they continue to be

Bwah ha oh well there shock message worked.

Yeah, and you know, let us make the medicines that none of them are declining to use anyways (freaking hypocrites). If they are so against animal testing, they should stop using anything that has been tested on animals. That means no medical treatment whatsoever. Have fun with that PETA.Not all medical treatments are tested on animals. In fact, there is no reason to test on animals at all. It is an outdated and barbaric practise.
In a day when we can grow human cell cultures in a lab, doesn't testing medicine on rabbits to see how it will affect humans seem kinda stupid?

Bwah ha oh well there shock message worked.
Was thinking about that too ... whatever other effect they have had they got us talking about them

Not all medical treatments are tested on animals. In fact, there is no reason to test on animals at all. It is an outdated and barbaric practise.
In a day when we can grow human cell cultures in a lab, doesn't testing medicine on rabbits to see how it will affect humans seem kinda stupid?
Then you can only see cellular effect not system effect … hard to tell if something sets off asthma without a working repertory system

Then you can only see cellular effect not system effect … hard to tell if something sets off asthma without a working repertory systemThese tests will show if something is toxic or not. All other tests should be done on humans who understand the risk, and are compensated properly. If you have AIDS, and you know that a drug probably won't make you drop dead, and you're getting paid, you may be willing to test a new drug. If not enough people are willing to test the drug, then you wait until enough people are.
Infecting chimps with a disease, then performing dangerous tests on them when they cannot consent or understand why is unacceptable. If people aren't willing to test drugs themselves, then they shouldn't expect as many new safe drugs.

The question for vegetarians and animal rights activists is not whether we'd use drugs that were tested on animals if we were sick, but whether we push for an end to animal testing now, and whether we believe in our principles enough to walk the walk.
I do. If I were sick, I would be more than willing to test out new drugs that had been deemed as safe as is possible without testing on animals. I would see it as doing a service to all the people who would catch/get my disease after me, as well as to helpless animals.

Dempub - I accept your point, but you still ahven't properlöy answered the question - you've just given examples where a huiman in a vegetative state is not of use for behavioural and response tests.

Actually, that isn't all I gave. Of course, your next comment proves that you didn't actually read what I wrote, so no surprise there.

I agree, but as you mentioned where possible animals are under anaesthetic, so doesn't that also rule them out of behavioural and response tests?

Only if you are testing specifically for pain response, which is one of the rare cases in which anesthetic would not be used. We aren't talking about putting animals completely under here. We are talking about giving them painkillers after a surgery, or anesthetizing an area where you take a tissue sample - basically, the exact same times we would give human beings anesthetic.

so surely rather than sacrificing an innocent animal why not use a vegetative human in these instances - the model is far better than an unconscious animal?

Again, you demonstrate utter and complete ignorance of the scientific method. You can't simply do an experiment on a single creature and then say, "Look, it works!" Sample sizes must be a good bit higher than that. If you have a controlled study - where you can be sure that the animals are all the same, then you actually use less animals. We simply don't have enough people in vegetative states to do studies - plus we can't sacrifice them to find out the effects of whatever is being tested.

Meanwhile, again, since their bodies are not active, THEY WILL NOT HAVE A RESPONSE ANY MORE SIMILAR TO A NORMAL HUMAN BEING THAN MOST LAB ANIMALS, simply based on the fact that their body chemistry, metabolism, etc. is not the same as a normal human being.

In other words, your suggestion that a person in a vegetative state is somehow a better model than a well-matched animal model is nothing more than a display of complete ignorance.

But I also know that when an animal has been experimented on benignly, it isn't kept for the rest of its natural life.

In truth, the restrictions are different for different animals. The justification necessary for sacrificing a rodent is not really very stringent - mostly because lab rodents are altered to the point that they couldn't possibly be let into the general population anyways.

However, the higher level a mammal is, the more stringent the restrictions get. By the time you get into monkeys and apes, even a simple behavioral test done at an early age means that the animal must be completely provided for for the rest of its natural life (not cheap, let me assure you.)

When you said that the most stringent of requirements were those for using animals in which they could not be anaesthetised, one of the main reasons for this were experiments like Harry Harlow's (with his infamous "iron maiden" and "rape rack" experiments

There are all sorts of reasons for this. The point is that the restrictions exist. Unnecessary pain and suffering is avoided at all costs. And, as I said, these animals are kept in conditions better than most human beings.

Not all medical treatments are tested on animals.

Incorrect. If it has been FDA approved, it has been tested on animals. If the surgeons are trying it on humans, it has been tested on animals. Now, your local doctor may do something that has never been tried before and is completely outside of medical protocol just on humans, but that isn't exactly a standard medical procedure then, is it?

In fact, there is no reason to test on animals at all. It is an outdated and barbaric practise.

Again, incorrect. Your demonstration of ignorance of the facts is interesting.

In a day when we can grow human cell cultures in a lab, doesn't testing medicine on rabbits to see how it will affect humans seem kinda stupid?

Not if you know even the most basic facts about biology. Cells in culture do not react the same as cells in vivo, not by a long-shot. They are in completely different environments.

A cell culture will not tell you how the immune system will react. It will not provide healing response. It will not tell you how a drug works on a given disease. It will not tell you if the drug alleviates the symptoms of a given disease or syndrome. It will not tell you how many people might be allergic to a given chemical.

Cell culture is useful for basic science research - it gives us an idea of how a receptor might react to a drug or what response a cell might have to a given stimulus. But the body is not a bunch of single cell types growing on a plate. We have to see in vivo response before we can truly know what is going on. We have to see things in the context of the entire bodily response.

Meanwhile, we can't grow human cells for long without transforming them into cancer cells, which generally makes them quite different from regular cells. Primary cultures don't grow long at all - and many cell types dedifferentiate in culture - making long-term studies in culture pretty impossible. Human cells aren't something you can just go out to the store and buy, and only certain types are available at all. Thus, even in cell culture studies, animals must be used.

These tests will show if something is toxic or not.

Not really. It will tell you if it is toxic to that particular cell type, not if it will invoke an immune response, or cause metabolic changes, or induce an allergic response, or cause anemia, or, or, or....

I do. If I were sick, I would be more than willing to test out new drugs that had been deemed as safe as is possible without testing on animals. I would see it as doing a service to all the people who would catch/get my disease after me, as well as to helpless animals.

More ignorance. Research doesn't simply consist of testing drugs, my dear. Research consists of finding out how the various receptors in the body work - and what disease processes they might be involved in. Research consists of trying to figure out exactly what the mechanisms of a given disease are - and at what point they cause symptoms. Research consists of trying out things in a controlled environment, with a controlled genetic background, controlled diet, environment, etc.

Things don't move into humans until they have been tested more than anyone would ever guess - and unless we want (a) lots and lots of humans to die or (b) medical progress to stop dead in its tracks, this is how it is going to be. If you are opposed to this, then don't use medicine - period.

Dempublicents1 - I am not going to argue with you about experementation on animals as it has been argued over far too many times before, but I would like to know if you agree that labs (medical and cosmetic) should be forced to share research to reduce the number of needless experements?

It is far too common for a company bringing out a new brand of shampoo (for example) to just go ahead and do the same old tests agian... if the data/research/results were shared this would not be needed.

This ranks up there with those Greenpeace morons who invaded a stockbroking firm..and had the living hell beaten out of them by justifiably angry and fed up workers who had better things to do.

The lunatic left and then some.

Greenpeace, PETA and a load of others are not only out of touch, they are now more or less out of a "job" (if any of them even hold one down or know how to)...we have not only outgrown them, they are an anachronism.

I still remember the day a Greenpeace activist told me how the USA was launching B52 bombers off the USS Nimitz..and I am still laughing my head off over that one.

And no, the idiot in question had no idea what he had just said...which made it even more hilarious.

Haven't these braindead busybodies anythng better to do?

Come again tango-delta-whiskey-foxtrot? US aircraft carriers can't launc F-111 Ravens because they're too heavy, much less a full size nuclear bomber.

Dempublicents1 - I am not going to argue with you about experementation on animals as it has been argued over far too many times before, but I would like to know if you agree that labs (medical and cosmetic) should be forced to share research to reduce the number of needless experements?

It is far too common for a company bringing out a new brand of shampoo (for example) to just go ahead and do the same old tests agian... if the data/research/results were shared this would not be needed.
I think they should if it is a non specific chemical research … things that would not give away trade secrets

Sort of similar to the contents having to be listed on bottles

They have to share general research on their contents but don’t have to give out qualities they use and such

Dempublicents1 - I am not going to argue with you about experementation on animals as it has been argued over far too many times before, but I would like to know if you agree that labs (medical and cosmetic) should be forced to share research to reduce the number of needless experements?

In science (and thus medical research), labs do share research, as a matter of course. It is called publishing. Only private companies do not share research - as they have issues with intellectual property - something which is often unfortunate. Luckily, the bulk of basic science research is not privately funded.

Should they be forced to share research? Probably not. A company can't make much of a profit off of their research if they can't keep others from copying it, without all the monetary input ahead of time.

As for cosmetics, most cosmetics (once formulated) do not have to be tested on animals at all. As long as the ingredients of the cosmetic are non-toxic, we are generally talking about something that is purely topical - and does not need to be tested on animals.

It is far too common for a company bringing out a new brand of shampoo (for example) to just go ahead and do the same old tests agian... if the data/research/results were shared this would not be needed.

A new brand of shampoo is different, and thus cannot use tests performed with a different shampoo as its base. But again, unless you are putting an entirely new chemical into shampoo, animal tests probably aren't necessary at all.

Wow, I come in, looking for entertainingly histrionic PETA rants, and wind up improving my education in the field of practical scientific regulation. Thanks Dempublicents!

{dragging the subject back on topic now...}

It's interesting that the NAACP and the ADL posted objections to the display, It shows a certain understanding of the basic difference between intra-species (within a species) and inter-species(between different species) relations. Even when Slavery was in effect, a black woman was fertile with a white man (ask the descendents of Thomas Jefferson). This is severely different from, say, trying to breed a cow with a tiger.
PETA's Founder said a "Dog is a rat is a boy". Civil rights is about HUMAN rights. HUMAN.

The whole "Mute/infant/etc" straw-man is just that. You write laws for the average, not the exception.

PETA shows a lot of "For me, but not for Thee" in their day-to-days. In order to support a full vegetarian diet for every person in the United States, one that is organically grown, you wind up putting every acre of arable land under the plow-including wildlife reserves. their leadership includes a person who would die if not for INsulin derived from the destruction of sheep-yet they oppose animal use for virtually any and every thing in their charter. This strikes me as somewhat similiar to Greenpeace using a worn-out, leaky, oil-gobbling,smog-dumping freighter to protest oil drilling.
Substitutes for Leather, oddly enough, require some rather specialized chemical processes that produce some pretty scary by-products. (really, REALLY, toxic stuff.) most of which tend to wind up in groundwater or down-the-river from the manufacturer. I wouldn't drink the wastewater outflow from DuPont chemical if I were you.

(PETA members are welcome to try it, if they're that stupid.)

Problems un-modeled by simulation tend to show up in Animal testing-the process of life is amazingly complicated, you can't input the variables reliably into a computer unless that computer has more sentience-level intelligence than the researcher. The best computers built are about as smart as a worm.
I doubt we could find enough Animal-Rights activists willing to replace their constituency in a laboratory to handle a SINGLE phase of research, much less the kind of extensive testing required under FDA.
I wouldn't trust a drug that hadn't proven at least mildly safe on animals. Generally, if it will fuck a human up, it will fuck an animal up.

The best computers built are about as smart as a worm.

Well there are some more advanced ones but they are as yet unpredictable (for example look up "learning computer" in association with determining tanks in photographs)

The whole time they thought they were teaching it to pick out tanks in pictures ... what the ended up doing was teaching it how to tell light from dark (all the photo's with tanks in it were shot on a cloudy day and all those with no tank on a sunny day) lol

Well I have to say, I support PETA to an extent, I think their problem is they have gotten too stretched out campaigning on every issue possible when they should have stuck to just a few - namely the ones that would garner the most public sympathy. I love meat, frankly I'm probably more of a carnivore than the cavemen were ;), but I am perfectly willing to pay more for meat that has been raised in humane conditions and killed in the most painless way possible.
I also am against needless animal experimentation, though I do understand that a good part of medical research needs it. If it will save countless human lives to test out some new drugs, then it is justified. However, I have observed first-hand that researchers frequently use animals like inanimate objects, upon which they conduct tests which have been performed countless of times before and are fully documented. I once asked a researcher who was working in the lab next to mine if it bothered him to perform procedures on his rat test subjects, and he just shrugged. I got the same response when I walked by his lab one day and saw his control group of un-anaesthetized rats (who had had a 1 inch in diameter hole drilled at the top of their skull so that the brain was exposed, then a plastic cap placed on top with two pin like devices which penetrated the brain) in their cages looking like they were in a great deal of pain (as any human would be). When I questioned him on why the animals were suffering, he told me that rats do not feel pain, and it was no big deal, since he was going to kill them later and dissect the brains. Sadly, at my university this sort of thing is allowed, as in many other places.
PETA should stick to campaigning about humane treatment of animals, both those for human consumption, pets, animals used for testing, circus animals, and of course encouraging conservation efforts for endangered species. I also find their anti-fur campaign worthy of support - as long as they stick to attacking purveyors, designers and advertisements for fur - and educating the public on the reasons for anti-fur; though if you already have one, might as well keep it so it does not go to waste. Which is why I liked the fact that PETA collected a whole bunch of used fur coats, and handed them out to homeless people.

Also to the pro-whalers on this forum - whale meat is a delicacy that comes at the expense of species that have been and still are threatened with extinction, in fact, at least several species of whales went extinct in the last 2 centuries due to overwhaling. That is why the majority of countries around the world support a ban on whaling, in an attempt to preserve what whales are left, and to encourage a population growth till there are enough stocks to allow a controlled harvest for those who wish to do so. Of course, there are countries like Japan who ignore the ban and hunt whales under the guise of "scientific" research to the tune of several hundred whales a year. Exterminating entire species simply because that species is a cultural delicacy is morally wrong and illogical, and quite frankly, it galls me that there are other humans who have no problem with doing so. :headbang:

PETA just offended me so much that I'm gonna go have some meat now.

I'm not even hungry, it's just out of spite.

However, I have observed first-hand that researchers frequently use animals like inanimate objects, upon which they conduct tests which have been performed countless of times before and are fully documented. I once asked a researcher who was working in the lab next to mine if it bothered him to perform procedures on his rat test subjects, and he just shrugged. I got the same response when I walked by his lab one day and saw his control group of un-anaesthetized rats (who had had a 1 inch in diameter hole drilled at the top of their skull so that the brain was exposed, then a plastic cap placed on top with two pin like devices which penetrated the brain) in their cages looking like they were in a great deal of pain (as any human would be). When I questioned him on why the animals were suffering, he told me that rats do not feel pain, and it was no big deal, since he was going to kill them later and dissect the brains. Sadly, at my university this sort of thing is allowed, as in many other places.

Out of curiosity, where is your university? I am aware that regulations are much more lax in other countries, but, if this is in the US and any public funds are being spent on it, I can assure you that it is nota allowed, unless justified by more than "rats don't feel pain" (a straight-up lie - they are used often in pain syndrome studies) or "I'm going to kill them anyway."

PETA should stick to campaigning about humane treatment of animals, both those for human consumption, pets, animals used for testing, circus animals, and of course encouraging conservation efforts for endangered species.

Sounds good to me.

I also find their anti-fur campaign worthy of support - as long as they stick to attacking purveyors, designers and advertisements for fur - and educating the public on the reasons for anti-fur; though if you already have one, might as well keep it so it does not go to waste.

I can see the point in an anti-fur stance, so long as it is opposition to animals being raised and killed completely for fur. If fur is simply obtained from animals killed for meat, I have no problem with it - as I think we should use every resource we can from a given animal, instead of wasting parts of it.

Actually, that isn't all I gave. Of course, your next comment proves that you didn't actually read what I wrote, so no surprise there.

I read what you wrote

Again, you demonstrate utter and complete ignorance of the scientific method. You can't simply do an experiment on a single creature and then say, "Look, it works!" Sample sizes must be a good bit higher than that. If you have a controlled study - where you can be sure that the animals are all the same, then you actually use less animals. We simply don't have enough people in vegetative states to do studies - plus we can't sacrifice them to find out the effects of whatever is being tested.

I never mentioned sample size - I believe the ignorance lies in your assumption that I thought tests could be done with small samples - where did I write that? What would have been a polite thing for you to write here would be "tests on vegetative humans would not work because there are too few for more than a few tests". I posted to engender debate, not get flamed.

Meanwhile, again, since their bodies are not active, THEY WILL NOT HAVE A RESPONSE ANY MORE SIMILAR TO A NORMAL HUMAN BEING THAN MOST LAB ANIMALS, simply based on the fact that their body chemistry, metabolism, etc. is not the same as a normal human being .
So a human body that, granted, is inactive, is no better a test model than a live lab animal??? Is that a fact? I willing to put forth an educated opinion that it is not (because unlike you I'm willing to accept that I don't have all the answers and don't flame others if their opinion differs to mine). I ask you to back up your statement.

In other words, your suggestion that a person in a vegetative state is somehow a better model than a well-matched animal model is nothing more than a display of complete ignorance.

Again another flame - I fail to see what I did to provoke your personal attacks Dem-pub based on the previous posts, thus I conclude you are a troll

Here's a tip - learn some manners

Out of curiosity, where is your university? I am aware that regulations are much more lax in other countries, but, if this is in the US and any public funds are being spent on it, I can assure you that it is nota allowed, unless justified by more than "rats don't feel pain" (a straight-up lie - they are used often in pain syndrome studies) or "I'm going to kill them anyway."


- Canada, actually. I heard PETA is campaigning to improve the standards set by the Canadian government for animal testing, from what I hear they are extremely lax.


I can see the point in an anti-fur stance, so long as it is opposition to animals being raised and killed completely for fur. If fur is simply obtained from animals killed for meat, I have no problem with it - as I think we should use every resource we can from a given animal, instead of wasting parts of it.
- I definitely agree to that, which is why I do not have a problem with leather, if we are going to kill a cow or pig for meat, we might as well use every part of it possible (well except to feed other livestock - who knows what other diseases besides BSE can be transmitted).

I whole heartedly feel that animals deserve better rights. However completely abandoning our dependence for them is ludicrous. We need animals to provide basic needs for us.

I also wondered what if PETAphile (hehe get it? Bah I thought it was worth a chuckle) did get a bill past that freed every animal in captivity. Hmmm I wonder where all those animals go. The PETA folk probably think that they will magically run off into the wildnerness to live a full and rich life. Odds are they'll starve to death, kill each other. or run into a Buick.

The cold fact is, we are the top of the food chain, we come first.

I read what you wrote

And yet missed the part where I pointed out that we could not perform the necessary large-scale, controlled studies on people in vegetative states.

I never mentioned sample size - I believe the ignorance lies in your assumption that I thought tests could be done with small samples - where did I write that?

It is implicit in a statement that medical testing could be carried out on people in vegetative states. If you believe this to be true, then you believe that testing can be carried out with tiny sample sizes, since there simply aren't that many people in these states (not to mention that most of their families would not allow it).

What would have been a polite thing for you to write here would be "tests on vegetative humans would not work because there are too few for more than a few tests".

Well, I have now written that twice.

Here's a third:

There aren't enough people in vegetative states to carry out large-scale, controlled studies. In truth, controlled studies really couldn't be carried out with them, and large-scale studies would be impossible.

I posted to engender debate, not get flamed.

Well, considering that I haven't flamed you, I don't see what the problem is.

So a human body that, granted, is inactive, is no better a test model than a live lab animal??? Is that a fact?

Yes, it is, for the vast majority of research and medical tests that need to be carried out.

I willing to put forth an educated opinion that it is not (because unlike you I'm willing to accept that I don't have all the answers and don't flame others if their opinion differs to mine). I ask you to back up your statement.

I have already backed up my statement in two previous posts. If you have chosen to ignore that, it is your problem.

Meanwhile, I never claimed to have all the answers, but I can pretty conclusively state that I am more educated about this subject than you are - simply by some of the comments you have made. It isn't a matter of opinion really, it is a matter of biology.

Again another flame - I fail to see what I did to provoke your personal attacks Dem-pub based on the previous posts, thus I conclude you are a troll

Again, not a flame. The word "ignorance" does not engender a flame. Now, if I called someone "stupid", that would be flaming, but flaming is not my style. Pointing out your lack of knowledge in this area, however, cannot possibly be construed as flaming.

Meanwhile, the closest thing to an "attack" in that post was the fact I pointed out - that you obviously did not read my previous post. You have completely ignored half of what I have posted - and then complained that I didn't say something I had already said.

I definitely agree to that, which is why I do not have a problem with leather, if we are going to kill a cow or pig for meat, we might as well use every part of it possible (well except to feed other livestock - who knows what other diseases besides BSE can be transmitted).

This is certainly true. There are other diseases very similar to BSE - scrapies is the variant in sheep, I believe. There is also a porcine virus that is not a BSE variant, but can be passed between animals quite easily.

I also wondered what if PETAphile (hehe get it? Bah I thought it was worth a chuckle) did get a bill past that freed every animal in captivity. Hmmm I wonder where all those animals go. The PETA folk probably think that they will magically run off into the wildnerness to live a full and rich life. Odds are they'll starve to death, kill each other. or run into a Buick.

One of the things I find quite interesting about the "free all animal" philosophy is that it couldn't be done. If some idiot decided to pass a law banning all animal testing - lab rodents couldn't be released into the wild, they have been genetically altered and bred to express traits not exhibited in the wild - that could cause incredible harm to the ecosystem if they were to become a part of it. For that reason, most animals bred for research would have to be killed - without even being used, if all animal labs were to be shut down.

One of the things I find quite interesting about the "free all animal" philosophy is that it couldn't be done. If some idiot decided to pass a law banning all animal testing - lab rodents couldn't be released into the wild, they have been genetically altered and bred to express traits not exhibited in the wild - that could cause incredible harm to the ecosystem if they were to become a part of it. For that reason, most animals bred for research would have to be killed - without even being used, if all animal labs were to be shut down.

Hypothetically if a law was passed to ban all animal testing, one could expect that provisions would be made to keep already bred research animals in caged humane conditions until they died of natural causes. Highly doubt such a law will be passed anytime in the next few decades, until viable alternatives for testing are found and put into widespread practice - at which point it would no longer be necessary to test on animals. I do hope it happens, as the idea of inflicting pain on a creature that is powerless to defend or protect itself, even in the name of science, is quite repugnant to me, even though I am one of the billions people who has benefitted from the result of animal testing.
I'm all for the "free animals" philosophy as it applies to performing/circus/exotic animals - though after what they have gone thru and their virtual dependence on humans since childhood, they would have to be released to a wildlife reserve that specialises in reintegration of such animals to the wild, or else placed in a game farm where they could live out their life with the assistance of humans since they may be incapable of surviving on their own.

It does make you think, how close are Greenpeace and groups like PETA to terrorist groups. I mean storming buildings in stunts, to me sounds like hostage taking.

The best thing France ever did was the bombing of Rainbow Warrior!

I disagree that France were right to bomb the Rainbow Warrior, as that was a clear mistake. But certainly there's a number of animal rights activists that act like terrorists here in the UK, and I wonder if they actually believe in animal rights at all. They certainly don't seem to believe in human rights, and humans are a species of animal...

If some idiot decided to pass a law banning all animal testing - lab rodents couldn't be released into the wild, they have been genetically altered and bred to express traits not exhibited in the wild - that could cause incredible harm to the ecosystem if they were to become a part of it.

Moreover, domesticated rodents, inbred as they are, tend to be inherently less fit than their wild counterparts. Provisioned with a steady food supply and no risk of predation, lab mice had no need for such qualities as strength, speed, and endurance; genetic mutations that compromised physical fitness were thus perpetuated. However, laboratory mice are largely incapable of manufacturing melatonin (making them less disposed to both purely diurnal and nocturnal activity brackets and thereby inclined to feed during both light and dark hours – allowing for swifter growth, greater size, more frequent reproduction, and greater fecundity). While, if all lab mice were thus "liberated", it is likely that most would quickly succumb (as to disease, predators, starvation, and the elements), the potential (as you noted) for serious environmental disruption – whether by direct competition or, more likely, genetic contamination (so to speak), persists.

Moreover, domesticated rodents, inbred as they are, tend to be inherently less fit than their wild counterparts.

This is generally true. Some of the genetically altered mice, however, may not be. In truth, we don't know enough about some of them to know what effect their mutations would have in the wild.

However, laboratory mice are largely incapable of manufacturing melatonin (making them less disposed to both purely diurnal and nocturnal activity brackets and thereby inclined to feed during both light and dark hours

I hadn't really ever seen this. Most of the mice I look after sleep during the day for the most part, although I do catch them eating sometimes.

more frequent reproduction, and greater fecundity).

LOL! This I definitely believe. It is possible for mice to gestate one litter while nursing the other. I have had more than one mouse give birth to a new litter one or two days after I wean the old litter. And some of these strains have 9-10 pups per litter! (that'll fill a cage, lemme tell you)

While, if all lab mice were thus "liberated", it is likely that most would quickly succumb (as to disease, predators, starvation, and the elements), the potential (as you noted) for serious environmental disruption – whether by direct competition or, more likely, genetic contamination (so to speak), persists.

In truth, I'd be more worried about genetic contamination than anything else. We have mice now with human genes knocked in, with various genes knocked out, with transgenic genes for overexpression, and so on. There is no telling what introducing those traits into the general population - even for a short time, could possibly do.

For that reason, most animals bred for research would have to be killed - without even being used, if all animal labs were to be shut down.

Some might argue that such transient wastage of life would be more than justified by the preclusion therein of otherwise assured future suffering.

Some might argue that such transient wastage of life would be more than justified by the preclusion therein of otherwise assured future suffering.

If the animals suffered constantly, I might see that point. But they don't. As I've pointed out, lab animals often live much more comfortable lives - safer, more provided for, more regulated, than their lives in the wild would ever be.

Meanwhile, even if these animals did suffer constantly, one could turn that same argument around and say that such transient, controlled, and minimized suffering would be justified by the preclusion therein of otherwise assured future human (and animal) suffering.

I hadn't really ever seen this. Most of the mice I look after sleep during the day for the most part, although I do catch them eating sometimes.

While nocturnally-skewed tendencies persist in domesticated mice, they can supposedly better adapt to "reversed" (largely diurnal) and "varied" foraging regimes than their wild brethren. Interestingly (though perhaps more an indication of metabolism than failure to utilize daytime foraging opportunities), even the captive-born descendents of wild mice, when allowed unlimited access to food their entire lives, generally weigh only around half as much as lab mice.

If the animals suffered constantly, I might see that point. But they don't. As I've pointed out, lab animals often live much more comfortable lives - safer, more provided for, more regulated, than their lives in the wild would ever be.

True – sometimes understimulated, perhaps, but usually far from uncomfortable.

Indeed, I've only seen this argument employed (never exclusively with regard to laboratory animals) with justifications of abstract "freedom"; in light of such situations as Harry Harlow's maternal cruelty and extended deprivation experiments; or rooted in the rather fatalistic view that domestic animals' potential future suffering (regardless of the treatment of any given specimen today) will stem from their ongoing association with man - from their continued existence in the present.*

* - Similarly, some feel that, even if the universal adoption of morally-motivated veganism were to, say, necessitate the destruction of millions of now commercially worthless livestock, such a scenario would be preferable to a world where livestock would foreseeably continue to lead out lives with no aim but "suffering": slaughter or supposed exploitation.