Rick Bogle, co-founder of the Primate Freedom Project, which fights to ban primate research (and, sadly, the life-saving research that goes with it), has decided to join the ranks of extremists such as Jerry Vlasak in condoning the murder of researchers. Sorry Rick, researchers are primates too!!
On the Primate Freedom blog, Mr. Bogle has this to say:
Trauma surgeon Jerry Vlasik [sic] has suggested, and I think he’s right, that if just a few vivisectors were murdered that millions of animals might be spared much suffering. Many vivisectors would simply quit. I don’t see how this isn’t likely to be true. [emphasis added]
You can read more about Jerry Vlasak from our previous posting about him. Note Bogle’s agreement with Vlasak’s stance. Bogle continues:
Extending this line of thought, if one were to start killing vivisectors in order to terrorize other vivisectors into stopping their diabolical investigations, should the murders be secret? sanitary? neat? Maybe not. It makes a certain sort of dark sense that one very sensational murder could have a greater impact than many hidden murders. There is an equation of sorts suggested by this. If it’s true that a series of murders might slow the attack on animals in the labs, wouldn’t lives be saved if the smallest number of murders possible were employed? What might be done to make one murder more noteworthy or a more efficient tool than another? [emphasis added]
At least he’s more or less admitting such extremism is terrorism. Nonetheless re-read the bolded part. Despite Bogle suggesting a few public, grizzly murders instead of a lot of “secret” and “neat” ones, it is still clear that more grizzly murders would be more “effective” (more researchers quitting, thus less animals used) than fewer grizzly murders. From that basis then we must assume that the lives being saved from the “smallest number of murders” is referring to the lives of researchers. Let me thus paraphrase:
Wouldn’t researchers be saved if we murdered only a small number of them?
Some of you will already be screaming “NO, if you want to save researchers then don’t murder any of them!” For those of you not screaming yet let me show you an analogous scenario of a murderer caught by the police:
Murderer: But Sir, I saved lives as well
Policeman: And how did you do that?
Murderer: Well I was going to murder 5 people, but I decided to just kill just 3 people, thus saving 2 people’s lives!!
Policeman: You can’t claim you saved someone because you didn’t kill them
Well at least the policeman realises the flaw in the argument, even if Rick Bogle doesn’t.
In conclusion all I can say is that Rick Bogle can join the ranks of absolute nutter, alongside Vlasak – and dangerous nutters at that.