BS: Animal Terrorists

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 05 Feb 06 - 01:06 PM

You can't neuter what isn't there

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Raptor
Date: 05 Feb 06 - 12:49 PM

How about neutering him then? Surely no one would object to that.

Raptor

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Feb 06 - 10:19 AM

I say it would be a crime to de-claw Little Hawk.

He rarely shows them, but when he does they can be very effective...A

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Raptor
Date: 05 Feb 06 - 08:43 AM

I say we take up a collection to have Little Hawk De-clawed.

$2 each should do it.

"Look, man, if you have to imprison an animal and make it live a totally unnatural life indoors just for your enjoyment, maybe that's not such a good thing to do in the first place."-LH

Domesticated cats are not native to North America. And lead an unnatural life no mater what you do with them.

"Raptor - Just because my cat goes outside, doesn't mean she's wild"-Dianavan
"Like I said before, I'm not much of a pet person. I prefer my animals, wild."-Dianavan
what?

Raptor(Still a lunatic)

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Cluin
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 10:53 PM

This is me this time. ;)

I know a kid that was playing with his cat on his bed one day, cuddling with it. He didn't "ask for it" either, but his loving little pussy cat hooked a claw in the kid's eye, batting at the blinking eyelid. It got infected and the kid lost his eye.

How come dog owners have to obey leash laws and pick up their dogs' crap when they walk them (I'm in favour of those things by the way) but cat owners are allowed to let their pets run free, scratch and shit in my garden, piss on my laundry and fight and f__k in the tree outside my window when I'm trying to sleep?

Hey, I love both cats and dogs. I just don't understand the double standard.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 10:47 PM

How is Metheusela these days anway?

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 10:42 PM

You're right Clinton..She always had a penchant for older men!!

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 10:39 PM

I knew Cluin would never ask to see pics of my pussy in chainmaille......

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 10:37 PM

Cluin - I'm so sorry! I didn't mean to sign in as guest Cluin. It was me, dianavan. I really do need to find my cookie.

I was actually replying to your suggestion about de-clawing cats around children.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 10:35 PM

You prefer me naked and you know it...

So does your mother for that matter

:-P

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 10:01 PM

Maybe we should have Clinton "dressed", they say it improves the temperament...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: GUEST,Bunny Rabbit
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 09:58 PM

Personally I'm all for humans who try to defend other living creatures from cruel and unnecessary suffering.

There's little difference between a vivisectionist and the President of the United States. Both some to get their kicks from torturing and killing innocent creatures.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: GUEST,Cluin
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 09:53 PM

I don't have little kids around but when I did, I had cats that were not declawed. Neither of my children were ever scratched. Then again, my children never 'asked for it' either.

I'm having a tough time differentiating between using animals for research and domesticating animals to the point of keeping them indoors and having them de-clawed. I am also one of those who believe feed lots and slaughterhouses should be abolished.

I don't see much difference. Its all about human beings abusing their power over helpless animals. As far as I'm concerned, I saved a cat from a certain death at the SPCA. I took her home and I liberated her. She's almost 12 years old and very healthy.

...but like I said. There are plenty who would consider my somewhat 'indifferent' attitude towards the cat, as neglectful. I think we co-exist.

How about these people who actually dress their pets? Pretty twisted if you ask me. I'll bet Clinton replaced the claws with a suit of chain mail. Do you have any pictures?

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 09:49 PM

Thanks LH, no one could ever accuse you of being a non-thinker.

I 'm convinced that people like Bunnahabhain, who catagorise protesters as "bad, mad and dangerous to know", are more worried about the effectiveness of the protests, than the future of research or the welfare of animals.

These folks usually have a right wing agenda going, and try their best to "dis" any movement that they see as a threat to the status quo...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 09:45 PM

LOL! Yer a goof, Cluin!

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Cluin
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 09:35 PM

Morality is a very subjective thing.

What might be right for you may not be right for some.

A man is born. He's a man of means.
Then along come two; they got nothing but their jeans.

But they've got different strokes.

And it takes different strokes.

It takes different strokes to move the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 09:27 PM

You're correct Akenaton. We do it because we can. If people got to spend some time inside the commercial slaughterhouses and saw what goes on in there, they'd stop eating meat pretty fast! I knew of 2 guys who that happened to, matter of fact. They both gave up eating any commercially packed meat whatsoever after a stint working in the slaughterhouses. Not on a moral basis, exactly...more because they just could not stomach it any longer. Literally couldn't keep it down.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Cluin
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 09:26 PM

If you've got little kids around, you should have the cat declawed.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 09:22 PM

To look at the qestion objectivly, are humans really superior to other animals ?
Do we have the moral right to hurt or kill orther "lesser" animals in the hope that it may make our lives in some way easier?
Would we sacrifice an innocent animal to save the life of say Hitler or a child murderer?

Many other animals have far superior pphysical powers than humans.
The human brain is more developed than most animals ,but we use it to destroy other animals including our own species, even perpetrating vile acts like the sex murder of our children.
I dont' believe we have any moral right to toture other animals who may have poweres more beneficial to the welfare of the planet than humans.
We do it because we can! The animals cannot protest!

If we would not sacrifice a pet dog or cat to save the life of a war criminal or child murderer, the moral argument is invalid.

These are simple examples of how we should look at the treatment of other living creatures.
If we want to live in a brave new world, we've got to start thinking...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 09:14 PM

Sorry. Typo. Exactly the other way around. I'm in favour of leaving them their claws intact.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 09:13 PM

I've seen clawed cats and de-clawed cats. I'm in favour of the latter, given the choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 08:52 PM

Now we're talking about animal terrorism!

In my mind, there is something just a little bit twisted about de-clawing an animal so that you can have complete control. The poor thing is perfectly helpless. Wait a minute. Thats not an animal, its a living, breathing, stuffed-toy.

Like I said before, I'm not much of a pet person. I prefer my animals, wild.

...and what about the procedure itself? ...and the time it takes to heal? Yuk!

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 08:14 PM

Yeah, Clinton, like I was thinking of you...

We're a mutual admiration society.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 08:07 PM

Thats me again, dianavan, at 6:21.

Time to figure out how to get my cookie back.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 07:36 PM

Like you know shit about shit... I musta been thinking of you when I typed "Their brain isn't much bigger than the end of my thumb..."

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 07:27 PM

That's mostly true of indoor humans too, Clinton. Specially the last sentence you wrote.

Look, man, if you have to imprison an animal and make it live a totally unnatural life indoors just for your enjoyment, maybe that's not such a good thing to do in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 07:20 PM

" I think its cruel to keep a cat indoors all its life."

An indoor cat lives longer... costs MUCH less at the vet... and if provided with good 'entertainment' will be JUST as 'content' (if not more so) than a cat that goes outdoors...

"cats should be de-clawed"
My indoor cats are declawed... that way my $100 cat isn't wrecking my $700 sofa.... or my $900 carpet... or... or... or...   

They also don't get yelled at for doing what comes naturally.... They also don't even know they've been declawed...   Their brain isn't much bigger than the end of my thumb...

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 06:21 PM

Raptor - Just because my cat goes outside, doesn't mean she's wild. She prefers mice and shrews to birds but she has killed the odd bird or two. I tried a bell but she always comes home without it.

My cat isn't a house cat. She's an indoor/outdoor cat and would be very unhappy if she couldn't climb trees, chase mice and sun herself in the garden. She also prefers garden soil to cat litter. I think its cruel to keep a cat indoors all its life. I suppose you also think cats should be de-clawed?

BTW - I didn't say she wasn't vaccinated at all. I said, "I find it very difficult to fork out money for all of the immunizations and innoculations they think I should give her."

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: GUEST,smiler
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 06:20 PM

I'm not a bunny hugger Gervase.

I don't love animals. More importantly I don't hate them, unlike Crystal and the rest of her ilk, who are brutalised by their work in the labs. Her dishonesty in terming an act of cruelty an insult, reveals this.

The very fact they are brutalised, is the same reason, they should not be near people's health, in the same way that Dr Mengele should not have been a peadiatrician.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Raptor
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 05:50 PM

I guess I'm still a lunatic but I'm for cancer reasurch, and don't consider that Unnessary expirmentation.

I'm also an environmentalist which is why I asked for the clarification SRS. You make good points.

I do think one should keep house cats indoors. Feral cats kill 1000's of birds everyday.Most naturalists agree with that.

And not immunizesing you pet is very cruel. Heartworm is a slow and painfull death I wouldn't wish upon a conservative.

But what do I know I'm a lunatic.

Raptor

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: gnu
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 04:42 PM

Thanks Crystal for your time and effort in sharing your expertise with us in this thread. I appreciate your educated input.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Sorcha
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 04:19 PM

Stilly, I don't know how it is with cats, but there is some new research out on dogs that says they don't really need vacs as often as previously thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 04:05 PM

"Clintonhammond was never fortunate enough to meet..."

Ya... neither were you...

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 03:49 PM

That last post was me, dianavan.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 03:48 PM

SRS - My cat has been spayed. Don't forget I got her at the SPCA.

If the other cats in the neighborhood are immunized, then they should be protected from disease.

As far as being a vector, last time I checked, she wasn't an arthropod. As far as being a carrier ??????? Who knows? If you are paranoid about my healthy, nature loving cat, keep your cat indoors.

Besides that, my cat is so mean, she won't let any other animal into her territory. I don't think you have anything to fear.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 11:48 AM

On the other hand, I find it very difficult to fork out money for all of the immunizations and innoculations [sic] they think I should give her. She's an indoor/outdoor cat and they think its negligent for me to let her outside. I think she's entitled to be a cat.

Do you at least spay or neuter your cats? Ignoring the immunizations available allows your animal(s) to spread disease among the pet population in your neighborhood. It also allows such nasty things as rabies to enter your domain. The cat is a good vector from wildlife to humans.

Raptor, my remark that says to eschew the comparing or lumping together of animal rights folks and environmentalists means that environmentalists don't want to have anything to do with the wacko animal rights folks, because they are mostly fighting an emotional battle that isn't based on good science. People outside of these two areas don't always know any better and assume that the rights of animals are somehow tied into cleaning up the environment. Animals don't have standing in the courts*, as hard as the animal rights folks would try--they want their own version of the Endangered Species Act that limits vivisection and testing.

* This is not to say there is no protection for animals in abuse situations or general raising or management of them, but they are not other-than-human-people, they are property, so cases can't be brought on their behalf.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Troll
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 10:13 PM

The rain it falls upon the just
And also on the un-just fella.
But chiefly on the just, because
The un-just stole the justs umbrella.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Gervase
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 08:30 AM

A moral fabric pervades this entire universe. You do good you get good back. You do evil you get evil back.
Sorry, only just picked up on that.
Is that a fact or a belief?
If it's a fact then, as far as I can see, morality plays no part in the laws which we perceive to govern the universe. The universe is magnificently amoral - natural catastrophes wipe out the devout as well as the lax, while many a wrong 'un prospers, lives to a ripe old age and dies in his bed.
If, however, it is a belief, then it's one to which you're entitled, but it means no more than the tooth fairy, Father Christmas or the divinity of Christ. It certainly has no part to play in a discussion of ethics or scientific method.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 08:14 AM

Smiler,

the numbers you quote on cancer may be correct but they are irrelevant for the argument. Crystal has said it already and I concur from another point of view. I regularly give the cancer data you have quoted to a research methodology class as a task to find out how they can be interpreted. The best of them come up with the more-cancer-because-we-get-older idea.

I then ask them at which data we should look to find out whether the age idea is correct. A good response is to look at cancer incidence separated by age groups. If you look at these data you can clearly see that for all (or nearly all, depending upon the country) age groups the incidence of cancer has decreased over the decades since Victoria was queen.

Though the age controlled cancer data have decreased, the overall data have increased. That is not easy to understand for people not trained how to read statistics. It is a variant of Simpson's paradox that has fooled you.

One more reason how you can be fooled: If you look at the data how many people have cancer at one point in time (it seems to me you quote these data the way you describe them) then each succes of medicine in prolonging life of cancer patients will increase the number of people having cancer at the same time for they will be part of the cancer statistics for a longer time.

You may argue against animal experimentation, but you should strike the cancer data argument from your arsenal. You only can fool the numerically challenged with it.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Gervase
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 07:54 AM

I fear smiler is from the unreconstructed 'anything which causes harm to an animal is bad' wing of the bunny-huggers. S/he probably won't even wipe down kitchen surfaces in case bacteria are killed, while removing slugs and snails from the veg is a definite no-no.
Because that's the trouble with animal rights. Where, logically, does one stop?
Is it OK to harm creatures that don't happen to be mammals? Surely not, otherwise there'd be nothing wrong with battery farming.
What about cold-blooded animals? No, because frogs can clearly feel pain, and it would be wrong to inflict pain on them.
And then it gets tricky.
Snails? Well, they seem to be able to feel pain, as do any number of earthworms. But they do have some sort of nervous structure.
So...Is it OK to cause harm to a creature without a central nervous system? Difficult, because even unicellular organisms appear to be threat-averse and will positively move away from sources of stress.
So, smiler, where do you stop? Do you embrace the bacterium as you embrace the bunny?

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: GUEST,smiler
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 07:41 AM

You have know way of knowing if an animal tumour, caused by “a radio-active insultâ€쳌 - poison being the proper word - is going to behave the same way as a spontaneously occurring tumour in a human. The truth is poisoning animals hinders proper medical progress, as they are all tested on humans anyway.

Also what is survival? I understand its five years after diagnosis, so die five years and a day later, you'll call it cured.

Any dunce can poison animals and report on the results. Most do

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Crystal
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 07:02 AM

The cancers are caused in animals in the same way they happen in humans, by giving the animal a chemical or radioactive insult and then either watching to see what happens, or giving another insult. Also human cancer cells may be injected into animals to look at the way cancers metastasise to other areas. How has this helped? we can now predict how tumours will spread and how to operate on them. We also have an arsnal or effective treatments. 100 years ago cancer was a death scentance no-one survived unless they were VERY lucky, now it accounts for 154,547 deaths per year in the whole of the UK but compare this with about 270,000 new diagnosis every year. Cancer deaths have FALLEN by 11% in the past 10 years and if I get breast cancer tomorrow I have an 83% chance of surviving for 5 years thanks to animal testing! Also thanks to knowledge gained from animal studies we know that about 135,000 of those diagnosed with cancer could have avoided it by listening to advice about changing their lifestyle.

People always forget that the first ones to benifit from new drugs etc are animals, even those drugs which have been shown not to work in humans.

What is your viable and safe alternative to animal testing Smiler? Obviously us all going back to running around naked, sleeping in trees and eating raw meat is one, but I think you'll have a hard time convincing other people.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: GUEST,smiler
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 06:55 AM

Thats been debated elsewhere in history and the impartial jury is still out

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Gervase
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 06:09 AM

God didn't create anything, smiler. We created god.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: GUEST,smiler
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 06:08 AM

Speak for yourself Crystal

You can also explain while you're at it how a spontaneously occurring cancer in a human is the same as an artifically created one in an animal.

Sorry, God didn't create necessary evils.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Crystal
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 05:25 AM

>>If cancer afflicted approximately one in hundred of the population in the Victorian era, and now afflicts one in three (and rising), that's a pretty fair pre-suppositional question, given animal based cancer research has done sweet FA to allieviate this.<<

I am a cancer researcher so what I am about to say is based on consensus, peer reviewed research NOT opinion.

Cancer is a disease of aging. The simple fact is that more people are surviving to get cancer thanks to modern medicine (tested on animals for the most part). Also the sudden upsurge in carcinogenic chemicals which are in our foodchain, plus increased smoking and overeating by people who are reluctant to see a doctor at the first warning signs had increased DNA damage.
When the DNA is damaged it DOES NOT automatically cause cancer, usually a transformed cell dies, but somtimes it aquires a mutation which makes it resistant to the proscess of programmed cell death (apoptosis). Usually these cells are destroyed by the body, but somtimes they survive to divide, effectivly you have a set of immortal cells (as long as you are alive at least). These immortal cells can then pick up other mutations, and if they get one which causes out of control cell division then that is cancer.
If the body is good at getting rid of mutated cells then you are less likely to get cancer, but as you age the mechanisms wear out. Also there are thousands of different combinations of mutations so there is no way to say (for example) "ah ha, this is what causes breast cancer".
If you don't like animal testing don't take any medicines, not even the Chinese ones, they have ALL been tested on animals. Animal testing is, unfortunatly, still a nesscessarry evil, unless we have an endless supply of willing voulenteers to test if this new drug is horribly toxic or not. I think you'll find there will be very few of them, we are a selfish species.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Mudlark
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 12:54 AM

Watching a program called "The Dark Side of Elephants," about rogue elephants, the comment was made: "Once an elephant kills a man, it is forever changed." And it made me wonder if the reverse is true,,,if once man kills an elephant, a human, a cow, or performs painful acts on animals to perfect cosmetics, does it change the man.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Peace
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 10:30 PM

Oh, so cats are animals now? That explains why the one I used to have didn't like being tossed in the lake. Hell, the Lab didn't mind. Who knew?

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 08:54 PM

There are weirdos at the extreme opposite edges of any contentious issue.

Their presence obfuscates the issue itself, and sheds little light on the matter.

There are plenty of valid reasons to be very concerned over what is done to animals in this society...mostly by the meat and dairy industries...secondarily by lab testing.

I agree, Dianavan, that your cat has a right to be outside, and I'm sure the cat agrees with both of us. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 08:22 PM

extremists are extremists.

I'm sure most animal rights activists would not go so far as arson, threats and kidnapping.

I've only met two animal rights activists and they are both childless women. Yes, they are a bit strange. They treat pets as if they were human. I think its mothering gone astray. Reminds me of those animals that raise animals of another species. Seems a bit perverse.

I'm not the best pet owner in the world and I'm sure they think I'm cruel. I like my cat but she has to pretty much make it on her own. I feed her and give her a warm place to sleep. It beats what the SPCA had in mind for her.

On the other hand, I find it very difficult to fork out money for all of the immunizations and innoculations they think I should give her. She's an indoor/outdoor cat and they think its negligent for me to let her outside. I think she's entitled to be a cat.

Sure, I check the labels and I don't wear many cosmetics anyway. Lets face it, pets are pretty far removed from their natural state. If you want to protect animals, protect the environment. Its more important to protect an entire species than it is to protect a population of pets that are out of control.

Domestic animals are a bit wierd, anyway. What a concept! If animal rights activists want to protect animals, perhaps they should discourage the breeding of pets, period. Animals should only live in their natural habitat.

Yes, using them for experiments is disgusting but....

ya gotta pick your battles.