quote:

Originally posted by labrat99:
I always find it funny that every time the anti viv arguments fall flat on their face they seem to blame a conspiracy of bias and vested interests.

? I think it is clear that it is Dr Simon Festing who has fallen flat on his face.

quote:

or maybe, just maybe, the reason why every report comes out against you is because you repeatedly quote simplistic arguments and bad science.

Do you actually know of any scientific case for animal testing though? I'd be interested to hear it if you do. I will post the basis of the scientific case against on a separate post and I'll be happy to discuss any points/logic you dispute.

quote:

stop blaming the establishment, and come up with realistic, evidence based and data supported research that stands up to peer review and the scientific community will listen to you!

Unfortunately, as history shows, it is always difficult to overturn deeply entrenched Establishment dogma regardless of how much realistic, evidence based and data supported research is presented.

quote:

anyone can write a "scientific paper" - writing one that stands up to scrutiny is where anti viv argumjents always fall down.

Most of the evidence against animal testing comes from vivisectors themselves and from peer-reviwed studies, for example note the source references for the information on this Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine link
http://www.pcrm.org/resch/anexp/rats.html

quote:

I've heard a lot about alternatives - If we do not fully understand the mechanism and mode of a disease, cancer being a good example, then how can we develop a non-animal model of that disease?

There are around 200 different human cancers and we don't have any animal models of human cancers, we have animal models of cancers but as this quote shows they do not reflect the mechanisms at work in human cancers

"The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it simply didn’t work in humans." Dr. Richard Klausner, National Cancer Institute, May 6, 1998.

This and other quotes re cancer and links to quotes re other diseases on this link
http://www.curedisease.com/cancer.html

Also you might be interested to know the information on this link re 'Why we are losing the war on cancer'
http://blog.aperio.com/articles/Fortune_Cancer.pdf

quote:

I'd also quote little foibles of science like the differing toxicity of drugs through different methods of administration (eg. the first pass metabolyte effects of paracetemol) something which would be impossible to recreate in a non-animal model, certianly impossible in cellular testing.

Firstly, each species has its own body system anyway, for example metabolise drugs differently (metabolism is of course a crucial factor re toxicity), and that this is the case is demonstrated via the information on the above PCRM link.

Further though, due to tiny tiny genetic variations between humans and factors such as age and health, there is no one 'safe' dose for all humans, it does not work like that. Also, there are anyway already non-animal methods to evaluate toxicity more accurately than via other species.

The following is the basis of the scientific case against animal testing -

- Species are defined by their genetic isolation

- Our body systems interact and work as a whole

- vivisection is a flawed methology because non-human animals are different not only from humans but also from each other at the cellular and molecular level where disease occurs

- these immeasurably complex differences mean the results from one species cannot be scientifically/safely applied to any other species

- therefore, it is never until AFTER testing on the target species (eg humans) that it can be known, ie with hindsight, whether the experiments on other species did or did not 'predict' effects in the target species

- but of course, once such testing has been carried out on humans anyway the results from other species are irrelevant.

- further, even the results from humans cannot be scientifically/safely applied to all humans because tiny, tiny genetic variations between individuals make all the difference - it is not the number of similarities that matters but the tiny tiny differences.

Oh lord labrat, I was being ironic! Did you really think I was asking you to do that?? I think you have rather over-egged the pudding. I was making the same point that you have but with rather more humour. What do you think I was saying??

If paracetamol was discovered today, along with several other very useful drugs I happily dish out daily, it would not pass the vivisectioners tests. It is too toxic, and would never make it to clinical trials. And as for the overdosing of small children, frankly I wouldn't put it past you! No, seriously, before you get the hump, there are loads of alternatives. Of course its unethical to experiment on people. SO why do vivsectors do it to animals? They suffer just as much, even more because of their lack of understanding about the situation they are in.

People overdose themselves everyday by accident or design. Thats how the medical establishment finds out what happens when people OD on a drug. THE ONLY VALID WAY. Its the same with new surgical techniques. In the event of traumatic injury, new techniques are designed. Ask any surgeon. Most surgical advances were made during wars. The data is all there for examination and interpretation. The biggest advances in public health were due to observation and common sense. The links were made between sanitation and disease. Vaccines were discovered by observation of a community hit by smallpox by the local doctor. The spread of cholera was stopped in a similar way. Penicillin and all antibiotics would not be in use without the common sense of Fleming noticing that blimmin petri dish. The method of spread of AIDS was discovered by observation. Whereas its treatment was considerably held up, and many people therefore died, because animal experiments were so misleading. We need better data collection methods perhaps. Frankly, you are underestimating the ingenuity of people who make discoveries. There are many many ways to advance medicine, none of them should involve inflicting unnecessary suffering. That doesn't make sense. Thats my point.

Even though this has to some extent descended in to a flame war (not the usual kind, this is the kind where everyone is really nice but scathingly sarcastic to the point where people polarise their oppions just to be in the right) Especially, I'm sorry to say, floozy who started out interesting & intelligent an just got smarmy. I thought I'd post my five peneth worth as it's something I've yet to see really voiced... so hello

Now, I do have sympathies with the anti-viv oppinion, I have had dogs arround me all of my life which also adds an emotive reason to feel anti-vivi, but any sentiment I have for the people who belive in it enough to protest utterly dissapears as the extreme elements have become the mouth piece of the whole.
Whenever there is something in the news about this sort of thing, or there's a show about it (like the somewhat unbalanced more4 show last night) it is almost always about the violence, the intimidation, the hatred... I know that the media can be biased and not report the peaceful protest but the peaceful side of this "movment" (I'm loathed to call it that, I greatly dislike "movements" as they are usualy led by people who want others to do their dirty work for a "cause"...) but the violence & seemingly the hatred is on the rise and it is getting every chance it can to shout to the media.

But the problem is that the peaceful side doesn't try to distance itself from the violent and hateful, they support their actions through inaction and sometimes even support it with words if it reaches the same ends as they wish. I have a huge moral problem with this as I do not belive in using violence to get your view accross, you point made or your changes wrought unless it is the very last resort and every otehr option is exausted.
How often, I wonder, do you see the people with such venom in them at the testing/viv scientists, stop and think that instead of going out intimidating and hurting people they should devote their lives to proving it wrong. Devote themselves to learning and working to the ends of finding better ways to do these things so that vivisection becomes useless. All that time and effort put into something so utterly humanly negative could be used for the betterment of people and animals... why does it always have to be an either/or?

But I've gone off the track somewhat, my main point is about the public image and perception of anti-vivi/testing people and how they let members of their own group portray the whole (and responing to something floozy wrote, the public oppinion may be ignorant but only because most people don't have or want to spend the time finding out all the facts about people who are portrayed (by themselves sometimes) as extremists... hell, it's hard enough for political parties to get people interested in what they have to say let alone less main stream groups, people have better things to do with their time).

As a for instance, when you get that ginger haired guy - can't remember his name off the top of my head - talking on the subject on a news program or similar, not only does he seemingly speak with the autority of the whole but takes every chance he can get to spew out pre-formed dogma and any question he is asked that doesn't fit in to his internal script he seems to ignore, brush aside or accuse the interviewer of obviously not caring or of having pro-viv sentiments (that good verses evil stament of his on the more4 program was atipical of his overall approach and frustrated me no end)... all it is meant to do it get a cheer out of the more extreme elements, nothing more. Yet people let him be their voice.

I feel it is him and the likes there of (don't get me started on that american psycologist, no can't remember his name either) that put myself and many other people who may have some sentiments in the anti-vivi direction, off them (if the violence and hatred hasn't already done it for you). They are the loudest and therefore they will be listened to.

If the anti-viv oppinion wishes to be taken seriously and garner some modicum of public support, not only does it have to improve it's public image (and by that I don't mean making itself look better while staying the same old sickness beneath) but has to change fundamentally, it has to be geared towards the positive. Like I said earlier, it needs to encorage people to work on finding and proving better ways of approching this, instead of the "hit someone it will make you feel better approach"... unfortunatly we are slowly becoming a society that expects everything done now and that sort of thing usualy leads to violence because once people are used to not waiting for something they get stroppy if forced to wait for resolution of their woes.

I'm sorry for this being an overly long post but I wanted to say it in a nice long winded way so as not to mix my words. It's probably not the most popular oppinion as it's not polarised enough for people to be interesed in (people always need a good cause, after all) but I thought it may give some people something to think on.

quote:

(that good verses evil stament of his on the more4 program was atipical of his overall approach and frustrated me no end)

Sorry, that should have been typical and I can't seem to edit it again. Really should have re-read it closer.

quote:

but the peaceful side of this "movment" (I'm loathed to call it that, I greatly dislike "movements" as they are usualy led by people who want others to do their dirty work for a "cause"...)

Should be followed by "is not overly prevalent." and

quote:

but the violence

Should be "The violence"
Sorry again.

In fact, it's those who defend animal tests who lack the proper evidence to back up what they say. A paper published in the British Medical Journal last year examined the claim that animal experiments lie behind significant clinical advances and found that the evidence to support it just wasn't there (check it out at http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7438/514). The paper didn't have a point of view on whether animal experiments worked - just that those who assert that they do don't have anything but anecdote and opinion to back the claim up. Unfortunately, they say it so often, the usefulness of animal testing has become a widely-accepted "fact" despite this.

Pro-vivisectionists also don't have an ethical leg to stand on. The argument that causing harm to benefit yourself is morally right is simply absurd. If I steal your car I definitely benefit but that doesn't make it right. I can't believe that intelligent people ever come out and say that in public - and yet, again, they do it so often people actually believe it.

THINK about this issue, people. Don't just parrot what you imagine you know and believe is probably right. If you think you're smarter than an animal, show it!

I'd just like to respond to Alex, whose posting I hadn't seen when I put mine up. I'm sure he or she is smart enough to realise that no one has complete control over their image. To improve people's perceptions, we'll need the media to start telling people that we're not all like the people featured on the programme.

I work for an entirely peaceful and responsible antivivisection organisation (the BUAV) which has explicitly condemned violent and intimidatory tactics on numerous occasions. We supplied some of the undercover images and footage seen on the programme and while we were pleased to see them on air, we were dismayed at how our movement was represented. The three talking heads on the antivivisection side all belong to the exceptionally radical fringe of activist commitment - in Professor Steve Best's case, the articulate but lunatic fringe. Although we spoke to the film makers numerous times and gave them a great deal of information, they never invited any of us to appear on screen - one has to suppose because our message of law-abiding, responsible campaigning would have sat uncomfortably within the simple, polarised narrative they wanted to present.

Their choice to ignore peaceful campaigners served only to reinforce stereotypes about animal rights activists and alienate intelligent, compassionate people who might otherwise be receptive to our message. The entire media do this all the time. Yes, to an extent we certainly need to put our own house in order but we get the very opposite of help from the media (who sensationalise hardcore activism) and most politicians (who feed it by refusing to engage with responsible groups like us).

So, AlexW - don't believe all you read or hear. Look at our website, think about the issue and not the sideshow and please join the overwhelming majority of rational, compassionate and non-violent people who are labouring hard to bring those values to science.

quote:

Originally posted by AC:
In fact, it's those who defend animal tests who lack the proper evidence to back up what they say. A paper published in the British Medical Journal last year examined the claim that animal experiments lie behind significant clinical advances and found that the evidence to support it just wasn't there (check it out at http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7438/514). The paper didn't have a point of view on whether animal experiments worked

I would disagree completley with your analysis of that paper - the paper isnt arguing that testing is invalid, just that the data can sometimes better be utilised in a systematic manner - its arguing for better data analysis, rather than stating that the data is not valid, for example
"An unpublished study by Ciccone and Candelise systematically reviewed randomised controlled experiments of animal stroke models that compared the effects of thrombolytic drugs with placebo or open control.17 The background to the study was the finding that clinical trials of thrombolysis for acute stroke had found a substantial excess risk of intracranial haemorrhage that had not been predicted by individual animal studies. When the animal data were pooled, a significant difference was found in the rate of intracranial haemorrhage between animals in the control and treatment groups."

now, doesnt that state that in the clinical trials they found something that hadnt been identified in the animal data, but on reviewing the animal data they found it was there, they just hadnt recognised it.

The paper is an argument about poor data analysis & interpretation rather than poor data.

quote:

just that those who assert that they do don't have anything but anecdote and opinion to back has become a widely-accepted "fact" despthe claim up. Unfortunately, they say it so often, the usefulness of animal tingite this.

exactly the same could be pointed out about the anti viv arguments, however once again, I'll come back to the statement that you are on a hiding to nothing until you produce proper data, I'm afraid that most of the papers put forward by catrinaC really do not hold up to scrutiny, or at least the conclusions being drawn from them do not - its easy to pick out specific differences between dogs and humans, however specific differences do not invalidate the very many similarities from which research builds its results.

of course, if the argument is that dogs or rodents are too dissimilar to humans, then it opens up the suggestion that perhaps we should relicence the use of great apes, and use bonobo chimpanzees for research, as they are mans closest known relative - which should it be, use something less similar and carefully extrapolate the data, or use something closer to a human and increase the suffering - your call?

Sorry everyone for the very long post

AlexW, Thanks for pointing out that I started off by being interesting and intelligent. Even though I may have become 'smarmy' I also think every other point I've made is also relevant & interesting, and I'm still waiting for someone to properly answer the things I've said. Sorry if I am easily annoyed by someone deliberately missing the point but it makes a sneaky argument to pretend I have said something I didn't in order to avoid addressing the real issues presented by many of the posters here.

As for the problem of public image, I agree that it is anti-vivsectionists biggest problem. As someone who has been peacefully protesting and quietly campaigning for many years, I can tell you about the sea-change in public opinion that suddenly happened about 1999. At the risk of undermining myself and appearing to be yet another nutty conspiracy theorist here is an example. I will tell you what happened as I saw it and you can draw your own conclusions:

Every year there is an organised peaceful march through Sheffield thats designed to raise the profile and educate people about the animal rights movement and what happens in labs in our name. It used to be a bit of a laugh, like a fair with stalls, people dressing up, and having fun, the public and the very few police who were there came and mingled and talked, listened to the speeches, and were actually interested and supportive. The police were actually part of the reason it was fun, because they were genuinely there simply to stop us getting run over in the streets, and help us get round the long march without getting lost! So far so good. Never any trouble at all. So what happened in 1999?? Me and my mum arrived as usual at the train station. From the minute we got there we felt an atmosphere of intimidation. Everywhere we looked there were riot vans, helicopters, police in large groups in riot gear, we were being videotaped and shepherded around. There was a definate feeling that we were somehow dangerous, which was frankly ridiculous when you looked around at us all - new age hippy folk in sandles and middle-aged middle-class women who looked like they were on the WI. But even though we were sort of laughing about it, it was obvious that there had been a mandate from on-high to treat us like quasi-terrorists, (otherwise why bother heavily policing an event that was always very peaceful?)and for my money it was in order to make the general public frightened of us and stop them wanting to get involved. In one way it was quite encouraging that the powers that be had changed their opinion and now saw us as a real threat to the status quo - we must have been becoming successful, but this was a tactic that we knew we could not combat. And it continues to work brilliantly to this day. Many of my friends won't even talk about animal rights, they have made up their minds about the people involved - based on the propaganda in the media - and their view is that the movement is a bunch of terrorist thugs, with idiotic notions about the over-importance of animals compared to humans, that this issue boils down to 'well if it was my child or a mouse then I'm sorry but the mouse has to be sacrificed!' And that I believe is now the opinion of the vast majority of people.

As for violence, protestors are consistently the victims of severe intimidation and violence from the police, arms etc broken, people knocked over and trampled, 3 people have actually been killed! Remember, protesting is supposed to be legal in this democratic country! It may be still be legal, just!, but the laws are becoming more restrictive all the time. Is that to protect the public or prevent dissent? It is nowadays very scary indeed to go on any kind of march or protest. A lot of people are too scared to go anymore. And they are not scared of the protestors but the policing. You have to be a strong, brave person to do it nowadays.

As to why the animal rights groups don't disassociate from the more militant activists, well it would be like divide and conquer. There's a mix of people and views in any group and that is healthy. People splitting into factions never helps the original cause, it shifts the focus away from the core issues - look at religion as a perfect example. And afterall we want the same things - a total end to animal abuse.

Unfortunately there will always be a small minority of violent people in any group. Thats human nature, and the awful distressing things that continue to be done right now to helpless animals should really get anyones blood up. I don't know about you, but if I see someone hitting a dog, or tying a firework to a cat, I get angry and will intervene physically to stop it. Thats the natural response. Anger gives you the courage to act and put yourself in danger to help. If you would rather ask them to empathise and consider whether they really think its a good idea to do that, then I feel sorry for the dog or cat. But its why people become violent and angry. They know suffering is happening today. Every day. The small minority - who never actually plan physical harm but yes, want to frighten people and make their lives very uncomfortable - to some extent have my sympathy. They are risking their liberty and devote themselves to actually doing something tangible. And if you compare what is done in the name of science to what is done by a tiny proportion of the protestors it becomes insignificant and petty.

I also wish debate was enough to change things, but if common sense and majority opinion were so powerful then it would not have taken so long to ban hunting with dogs! Even now its illegal it still happens underground. Check out this out - this was tabled a few weeks ago:

EDM (Early Day Motion) 438: Shortage of Foxes

MP Paul Flyn presented in the House that he agreed with Simon Hart, Chief Exec of Countryside Alliance, that his organisation would be ridiculed in Parliament on the publication of a letter sent by the Master of the Fox Hounds Association to 800 hunt masters, warning of the nationwide shortage of foxes, and urging landowners to breed more foxes to solve the problem! He welcomed this further evidence that foxhunting is unconnected with pest control but is devoted entirely to sadistic pleasure derived from the protracted torment and death of foxes.

How long before this country becomes civilised?

AC:
I do very much understand that you are not in control of the media image but the image portrayed could be countered by being proactive. Contacting as many news channels etc. as possible and letting them know you have someone representing your organisation - somone who can hold a rational conversation without losing their temper when someone disagrees with them - who will be available when they wish to do interviews on the subject would be beneficial. Getting to know journalists could be another boon, they may be more willing to take an in depth look at the realities of both sides and pubish stories (although never, ever, expect or attempt to persuade a journalist to only look at it from your side, it may very well bias them against you).

Like I said in my above post, the extremists are the loudest and they will be prefered by media unless the more moderate people force themselves to the fore.

You also have the corporations to contend with and when it comes to swinging money and oppinions arround they tend to be best, so I don't envy you, but going out of your way to push your point politely but firmly should in the end pay out... it may take a long time but it'll be worth it in the end.

And trust me, I don't belive all I hear... I'm quite the skeptic when it comes to the media

Floozie:
I can grasp that, however I tend to find that just poining out that I can see they are deliveratly missunderstanding what I'm saying and letting them know I wont respond to them until they act more appropriatly is far more conducive to a good conversation than letting them go on with the charade (far easier to do online admittedly). So I am sorry for saying you were smarmy but that is ho you came accross.

Now to your points...
Your anecdote is quite an eye-opener. I am not however surprised and I don't think animal rights protestors should feel singled out by this. This government, aswell as many around the world, seem to be taking more of an oppressive stance to anyone who protests against the status quo. Just look at the anti-war protestors (arguably the most peacful protestors you can get!) several years ago being hemmed in by riot police until people became violent after several hours of being trapped in one place with no food or facilities. And the police talked of this as containing the protestors! As if they were some great evil.

I also agree that the police also give out intimidation and violence, what is not often mentioned however is that it is quite often a few who bring this on the peaceful majority (although the police can be a violent mob themselves at times). If I remember correctly various peaceful anti-globalisation rallies/demonstrations have ended up being broken up by riot police because a few of the extremists goad the police and attack them. In some countries I remeber there being reports of some of these instigators being under government employ but I doutful that is always the case, you will always get the fringe few who make hell for the rest. That one however, depends on which side of the fence you are on.

I've gone off on a bit of a tangent again though.

Regarding dissociation being divide and conquer, to me it seems that by not dissaociating from them it is allowing the public oppinion to conqurer you, it lends peacful operations no credence (much like a peacful nation goading on a warmonger, extreme example maybe). By not dissasociating you are to some extent also condoning the violence, something that is not good for any public image (or in my case, conscience).

You talk of protecting a dog or cat being hurt, I do somewhat resent you trying to turn this conversation emotive when it is something that if not talked about in a calm and collected manner will just end up a shouting match. Of course I would protect a dog or cat but as the chap in the more4 program said, "when you hurl that brick it feels like retribution" (paraphrasing). That is not protecting, that is premeditated revenge and it may be the sentiment of the majority of violent protestors, it may not.

However to me it smacks of hurting people to make yourself feel better, it does little or nothing to protect animals as there will always be another scientist willing to research or another supplier or another buissness contractor. It is not the way to beat this.
I also cannot give sympaty to intimidation or "making their lives uncomfortable" as you put it. Again this is premeditated hate and not only does it play into the negative public image, it can quite easily spiral out of control. Again I think it does nothing to help animals for the reasons stated above.

quote:

They are risking their liberty and devote themselves to actually doing something tangible. And if you compare what is done in the name of science to what is done by a tiny proportion of the protestors it becomes insignificant and petty.

Yet evil begats evil. Comparing ill with ill does not make either insigificant just because the other is greater (which is a subjective term in this case). When you get onto that sprial all that happens is the lines constantly get drawn and overstepped. Much like wars in the past (and arguably, the present) where the atrocities became so great that surrender was unthinkable and each side drew up new and worse ways to take revenge for the last atrocity made by their enemy. It's an endless downward sprial that ends in the utter destruction of one or the other. Pointless.

quote:

I also wish debate was enough to change things

I have to admit that whenever you see this it usualy means that not all options have been exausted (far from it usually) but that people have given up being civil and wish for some payback, they want to give some hurt. I'm not saying this is the case with you, far from it it seems, but I suggest you be careful of what you mean when you say things like that.

Regarding fox hunting (and this is where I will most likley lose your respect and friendly converse) I am on the fence with strong leanings to supporting the fox hunters. Please hear (well, read) me out though. Now to some extent I am a coutry person and I have seen what foxes can do to farmers livestock. I lived next door to a milkman who went as far as to keep lots of chickens to have fresh eggs, they were of course free range. He locked them up in raised coops every night assuming they were safe but unfortunately some of the floor for these coops was just wire mesh and a fox decided that because it couldn't get at the chickens it would instead bite their feet off, which it did.

I am not saying this is an excuse for fox hunting exactly, but I think fox hunting is the better alternative to what otherwise happens. Foxes will be killed, either by shooting (which is usualy a slow death if they get clipped, which is proably quite common. It's also quite dangerous if it's done by lamping) or poisoned which again is an unpleasant death and will probably result in lots of other animals getting poisoned. The death of a fox by a pack of hounds is extremely quick despite what is put about about them being torn slowly limb from limb. Try explaining to a farmer who has lost animals to foxes that they shouldn't be killed. Yes, it's seen as a toff tradition and part of the "old ways" which are despised by a lot of people who want the new but the real world nessecitates to some people that these animals are a pest. I empathise with both sides but I feel that there is an honesty on the hunting side that lacks on the vocal part of the anti side (intimidating childerend for example, which I've had recounted to me).

It's also seems to be an attack on country ways and a bid to remove power from the coutryside by government (farm subsidies have come far too late to be any real good at saving britains farms, debts and cheap muck from abroad seems to be sealing the fate of this countries farming and farming knowledge IMHO).

I was not however aware of a shortage of foxes, or the breeding specifically for hunting (maybe they have all gravitated towards the cities, seems possible). I agree that that is counter intuitive to what is needed but even so there will still be a percived need for farmers to protect their livestock and if it is not done by hunting it will be done by other methods.

Is it an outmoded tradition? Probably, but it's also part of peoples lives. Something the vocal anti-hunt people seem to forget is that they are dealing with people and people who are generally far from the monsters they portray and they are trying to take something away from them... something that has been tradition to them. They will not give it up easily either if you treat them like scum as many do, they will hang on for the principal aswell as the tradition.


I'll proably be harangued for all of that but never mind. I prefer to give my full oppinion so people can think on it. Now I need a lay down after all of that

I think this program was a bit miss leading it seems to label all animal protesters extremists and this is Not the case most of the animal activists go out there and work hard to get the message out there without carrying out any illegal activities. You want to make your new drugs then let them test them on you but no instead you pick on the week and defensive, don’t you? what you do to the animals is like an adult bullying a child nothing but a bunch of wimps. this will NEVER be over till every single animal is FREE you lot deserve what you get like the guy said in the show you think you can go to your so called job kick, beat, torture and kill an innocent creature and come back home like every thinks ok? There will always be someone there to Stop You

Rob321 And that utter knee-jerk one sided "evil against good" statment that by it's very nature tries to provoke argument is just the sort of thing that puts many people off supporting animal rights people. Think before you speak/write.

I am not against the people who hunt. I am actually a country person, born and raised in farming country, and some of my best friends from school are heavily pro-hunt (one actually stables hunt horses and is a countryside alliance campaigner!) Many of them ride out to hounds and I can see why they love it. I have lived and worked in the country and know what foxes do. But you can't vilify them for following their nature, any more than you can vilify people for being emotional.

Foxhunting has never been a country versus town issue. Its a matter of cruelty. And I think the point about that letter sent to the masters of the hunt asking for them to breed more foxes for their sport illustrates it perfectly.

The plight of the farmers does worry me, again its about the bigger issue of globalisation, large companies dictating the prices and destroying the profits for the producers. And we are none of us innocent, when we demand more for less all the time - someone always has to pay in the end. Whether its the farmers, the animals, the planet or the poor people in sweatshops around the world. We need to take responsibility for our own actions and be aiming for a more ethical planet.

AlexW

what you want me to be all nice about the fact that they beat, torture, and kill innocent creatures every single day? If you had a child killer next door to you and you new he was beating his kid’s everyday you would talk nice of him? it doesn’t matter what i say some people will take it further then others im simpley saying they deserve what they get like the guy who lives next door who beats his kids he deserves what he gets.



Stop The Oxford Lab

National Demo, Jan 06


http://www.speakcampaigns.org.uk

quote:

any more than you can vilify people for being emotional.

I'm very glad to see you are not ignorant of it, but here I disagree. One of the arguments I've heard made by anti-vivisectionists / anit-hunt people is the fact that people are different and should be able to control themselves and not want to hurt/kill things. We have a whole system set up to vilify people who hurt others due to their strong emotions at the time. So I disagree, I think it is right to vilify (well, maybe not vilify exactly) when people take those emotions and hurt or intimidate others because of them. Either that or we can all be as base as we want. If that argument is to be had then it must be applied to the campaigners aswell as those who they campaign against.

It's also not about vilifying foxes, their nature tends to necessitate their killing (rightly or wrongly I do not know).

I also did not say hunting was a country verses town issue (although a lot of the time that is the way it is portrayed because the majority of either side is from either place) but it would seem more likley that the country is a bit of a pest to the government. The cities - or the whole UK really - depended on the country for food, this gave the country somewhat of a political advantage over the government and now through mismanagment (Deliberate? probably not but it can seem that way), supermarkets and globalisation the country can now be relatively safely ignored and they can introduce laws/bans more easily. I'm not saying it is, I'm saying it's how it can seem and does to me.

I utterly agree that we do need a more ethical planet, the problem is though... who's ethics?

I don't mean to chew your ear off on all of this, I'm just getting on my soap box a little.

Rob321
Your statements seems designed to get a response. Am I meant to get all indignent about it or to immediatly agreed with your whole side of the argument and worship your masterful debating skill? You see, like I said before, I belive that if you are to have this kind of conversation you have to try and keep your emotions at bay otherwise it becomes a shouting match and you will most likley only make others oppinion of your worse.

I'm not saying it is bad to have emotions on these subjects but if you want to get somewhere you have to keep it locked down. As and example there is what I've been talking about with floozie. After these short but polite and not overly emotional conversations I am looking at it in a slightly different manner. Maybe that's just me but if you cannot be civil in a conversation and resort to trolling to get a response then I will just ignore you.