Violence vs Non-Violence? The AR Debate!

A Fractured Movement?

It is easy to believe that the animal rights movement is one giant bloc, working together to abolish animal research using tactics which range from the legal, to the dubious, to the outright criminal. However it is these range of tactics which prove to be the most divisive point for activists, and is causing large fractures and infighting between groups. Recently the Thomas Paine’s Corner blog (TPC) (Warning: AR Extremist Website) has been attacking those parts of the animal rights movement who reject the use of “militant direct action”. The editors of this website include two Animal Liberation Front Press Officers (Jerry Vlasak and Jason Miller – see links for more details on them) and numerous other pro-violence extremists such as Camille Marino and Gary Yourofsky.

Emotion & passion drive action; not sterile debate. Attitudes change when people engage and feel. BE DISRUPTIVE. UNRAVEL COMPLACENCY. IT’S OUR JOB. We need to obliterate the status quo — not tolerate it; not become a part of it. Be loud! Be unafraid! Be Militant!
– Camille Marino – “Negotiation is Over” blog (Warning AR website)

“Do not be afraid to condone arsons at places of animal torture,” [Yourofsky] has written to supporters.
Matter of fact, if an “animal abuser” were to get killed in the process of burning down a research lab, “I would unequivocally support that, too.”
– The Toledo Blade, Sunday, June 24, 2001 (copy of article on AR website here)

TPC "approaches anti-capitalism and total liberation from an essentially anarcho-veganist position"
TPC "approaches anti-capitalism and total liberation from an essentially anarcho-veganist position"

TPC’s pro-violence rants have reached epic proportions, as this recent piece by Jason Miller (ALF Spokesman) on the TPC blog shows:

Call it [attacks on vivisectionists] extensional self defense. Call it justifiable homicide. Call it vigilante justice. A rose is a rose by any other name and it’s time for that flower to blossom in the AR movement. One of the master’s principal tools to maintain power, domination, and affluence is violence or the threat of violence—be it physical, psychological, social, political, or economic.

Consider this. Hideous as their agenda may be to some of us, anti-abortionist activists love embryos and fetuses enough to utilize violence as a form of extensional self-defense on their behalf. The question isn’t, “Do we agree with their agenda?” The question is, “Have they been effective?” Their record speaks for itself. Assassinations of doctors who performed abortions have nearly eliminated the practice of late-term abortions in the US. Food for thought.

Essentially Miller argues that any tactic that works – no matter how disgusting or morally reprehensible – should given consideration by his fellow activists. This kind of pro-violence rant, and the violence it encourages, has brought comment from non-violent AR activist Gary Francione. I’m no supporter of Francione, but I applaud his condemnation of the violent fringes of the AR movement:

Those who claim that there is such a thing as destroying a building or engaging in a break-in that does not result in harm or the risk of harm to sentient beings (humans and nonhumans alike) are simply deluding themselves.
– Francione’s blog “The Abolitionist Approach”

A Novartis executive has his house burned down by the Animal Liberation Front in August 2009
Did this arson attack risk harm to sentient brings? Almost certainly!

Sadly, other parts of Francione’s blog contain questionable pseudoscience (often thrown these in as “extras” to his arguments) and an even more questionable justification of anti-vivisection through arguments of sentience (see the AR belief section for a counter-argument).

Nonetheless, the fury of TPC against Gary Francione has been disgusting. His position of non-violence pro-veganism has apparently (according to Francione) resulted in him and his supporters receiving death threats. The TPC and “Negotiation is Over” blogs attacks have brought many other groups, such as HSUS, into the crossfire, as the fractures in the AR movement become more and more public:

[Francione’s] amoral and unconscionable actions became so regressive and dangerous, we have penned this response to denounce him unequivocally not only as a fraud, charlatan, opportunist, and megalomaniac, but also as a traitor and enemy to the animal liberation movement and as a major impediment to social transformation. Just as Wayne Pacelle of HSUS recently demonstrated that he is a collaborator with systems of oppression, so too Francione has now degenerated into an agent of state repression. He and Pacelle have now both attempted to defame and falsely accuse the radical wing of the animal liberation movement of terrorist actions and have sought to enlist and join forces with the state, the police and the FBI to break the back of militant forces in the movement.
– Camille Marino on TPC and Negotiation is Over blogs (Warning: AR wesbite)

Violence vs Non-Violence?

I will briefly end with my own assessment of the violence question. AR extremist groups frequently defend their actions by comparing themselves with other violent liberation movement in history e.g. The French Resistance who fought the Nazi’s in Vichy France.

The problem is that the entire argument fundamentally relies on the movement being morally justifiable. If you are willing to murder for your cause then you do so in the belief that you are in the right, that does not make it right. History is littered with examples of reistance/liberation movements who committed murder in the belief it would further their liberation cause – The Red Army Faction (Bader-Meinhof Group) killed many trying to liberate Germany from capitalist oppression, the Black September massacre at the 1972 Munich olympics was an action committed for liberation, recently Russia helped “liberate” South Ossetia from the Georgian Government and in 1945 the Soviet Russian forces liberating Germany raped and killed tens of thousands of unarmed German civillians.

The problem is that those animal rights extremists willing to commit arson, grave robbings and other attacks, do so in the belief that they are one of the “good” liberation/resistance movements – the fact that they are a tiny minority of people does not effect them if they believe they have billions of animals on their side (especially if they grant these animals moral equivalence) . There is little we can do to convince these extremists that their actions are wrong and immoral – many of these individuals have given years of their life to the liberation movement – for them to change their mind would be to say that the prime of their life has been wasted – something few people would be willing to accept.

Sadly there are a small number of people for whom jail will be the only deterrent – however our efforts in debating them can serve to stop them creating the next generation of animal rights extremists.



69 thoughts on “Violence vs Non-Violence? The AR Debate!

  1. Recently I wrote a blog entry offering a leftist critique of the ideology of “Green” environmentalism, deep ecology, eco-feminism, and lifestyle politics in general (veganism, “dumpster diving,” “buying organic,” “locavorism,” etc.). I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the matter and any responses you might have to its criticisms.

  2. Just so everyone is clear on who is a terrorist:

    From her FAQ page:

    “I define violence, minimally, as the intentional physical harm that a human animal inflicts on another living being.

    And my answer is that I unequivocally support violence if it will stop the violent.”
    – Camille Marino

  3. Further to my previous comment it might also interest you to know that prior to the death of Tom Worby the same hunt the Cambridgeshire suffered a horrific accident a couple of years before. An elderly follower had a heart attack and ploughed into other hunt followers, the grass verge was a scene of devastation with cars heaped up on one another with people trapped. Sabs ran to help and assisted with first aid and comforting the injured so I was told by one of the hunt supporters present.
    A basic rule of decency is to help those who are badly injured even if they are your enemy (unless they are actually are trying to kill you or someone else). I am aware of people on both sides of the fence helping the opposition out in an emergency but in the case of those killed and in my case the assailants ran off leaving the dying and injured and not even calling for help. I would never leave another person bleeding and screaming on the roadside whoever they were unless as I said I was in a b movie horror type scenario.
    In my case my assailant was raided, caught and charged which remains unusual in case in which an animal rights person is attacked.

  4. Paul, glad to hear that you are not totally emersed in evil. It is a good thing that in theory humans are regarded as equal and have rights. Regrettably the slave trade still exists and many humans are treated as inanimate objects but at least we can all agree that experimenting on non consenting humans is despicable. My point actually was that no animal rights activist has ever committed the atrocity of forcing an experiment on a human primate, some of your natural allies have. Furthermore you cannot deny that some vivisectors have knowingly put on the market substances known to harm human health, will you distance yourselves from these violent extremists?
    You accuse me of paranoia. Well when I was nearly killed by an off duty police officer I sustained possibly the worst injuries inflicted on any anti vivisection action by any side. My femur was smashed, I lost a litre of blood and half my face was hanging off. A freind of mine was told by one of the doctors that I was lucky not to lose an eye, I was also told that if I had been older or less fit that I would not have survived. The snide comments from some police officers and vivisectors have kept coming over the years along with the junk mail, the occassional threat and numerous violent arrests and raids and so I think that it is fair to say that I have had my share of harassment. I have to say though the Boden catalogues and gardening booklets have been quite handy!
    It may interest you to know at Climate Camp last year I was grabbed by 5 police officers (they were grabbing everyone even locals walking the dog). I refused to give details (we are not obliged to in the UK, usually) and they identifed me by contacting the police national computer and listing the scars on my ace and leg which one of their fellows had inflicted. Effectively I was branded when I was attacked. To my knowledge no police officer or vivisector has been thus treated by one of us.
    Mike Hill, Tom Worby, William Sweet and Jill Phipps did not die in “accidents”. With the exception of William Sweet who was shot (his murderer was imprisoned) all were crushed beneath the wheels of animal abuser vehicles and no-one was arrested. It is extraordinary that in the event of 3 deaths that the police have not investigated properly. In the case of Tom Worby (aged 15) adult hunters are reported to have laughed as he died after being virtually eviscerated and sabs begged for help. Maybe when the police and courts do nothing activists have no choice but to seek justice themselves, lessons were learnt by these tragic murders.

  5. My guess is that Simon tuned out because it was pointless arguing further. Hitler allowed experimenting on humans, we think that’s wrong. Actually you guys are more like Nazis because you advocate experimenting on humans.

    As usual I have no problem with anyone being against animal research. I think you’re wrong but hey, that’s your right. I have no problem so long as you refuse all medical treatments developed using animal research to include the following:

    cold medicines, decongestants, anti-inflammatory medications (Advil, Aleve), acetaminophens (Tylenol), antibiotics, antacids, allergy medications, any vaccines, blood transfusions, cancer treatments of any kind, CT scans, heart valve replacements, heart/lung machines, insulin for diabetes, MRI’s, penicillin, cholesterol medications and others.

    In fact, I have in my possession an Advance Animal Directive that I can send to any of you that allows you to sign that you wish to refuse treatment if such treatments have been developed using animal research. So it’s time to put your beliefs to test. Are you willing to refuse any or all of those treatments to adhere to your stand?

    1. We advocate experimenting on humans? Have you confused us with the pharma lobbyists?

      We oppose vivisecting on animals – that obviously means human or non-human animals, otherwise we’d be against vivisecting on non-humans. Surely anyone with any intellect could work that one out!

      The bottom line is I have no problem so long as you refuse all medical treatments developed using human animal research from Nazi Germany and also refuse driving on roads and living in houses that slaves built.

      So it’s time to put your beliefs to test. Are you willing to refuse any or all of those treatments and developments to adhere to your stance?

      That reminds me Simon, have you stopped driving vehicles yet due to the risk of harming humans? I hope so, since you criticise animal liberationists for driving vehicles that could harm animals.

      1. I didn’t criticize anyone for driving cars. I don’t think that was my comment. I’m not sure what research the Nazis conducted that we use now. If there is any please post where I may find it. If you want to me to be specific then yes, I advocate performing medical research on non-human animals because I believe the human animals are more important. I know the AR people don’t agree but that’s my stance.

        Also, not all research being conducted is for pharmaceutical research, a fact that the AR people continually ignore. They make it out like that’s all that’s done. Not all research is even to develop medications or cures. There is a lot of research directed at simply learning how the body works. How different enzymes work, how different cells work, how proteins work and what their functions are. We refer to this as basic research and it makes up a huge chuck of animal research.

        There is also considerable research into veterinary issues. How else other than experimentation on animals are we to do research into veterinary medicine which by definition is for animals? Such research is why a persons beloved Bulldog doesn’t have to die from Heartworm or a child’s cat has to die from Feline Distemper.

        If you have an alternative to animal testing I’m all ears. I’ve never heard one yet that can completely replace animal models for research. But if you’ve thought of one do tell. Using human animals (again, you’re term) isn’t viable because you’d never get enough volunteers to account for all the variables. If you’re studying a disease that affects 1-10,000 people if might be hard to get enough volunteers to test a product. Besides, human medications are eventually tested on humans after the animals. Every drug has side effects but animal testing give a reasonable chance of success with humans.

        There have been some monumental failures by pharmaceutical companies but that was often because they ignored the animal research and pushed through anyway. They have paid heavily in fines and should if they continue.

    1. You forget the law protects you too. I do not think the families of those who are vivisected would take kindly to you destroying their lives.

  6. God Lynn you really are mired deep in conspiracy land, no animal rights activists have been killed in the UK, all deaths have been either accidents or suicides. True the pro-hunting mob seem to enjoy violence almost as much as your side do, but they have nothing to do with science or medical research.

    Oh and Mark, Speaking of Research and Pro-Test certainly condemn the totally unethical research (some of it was almost too weird to be termed science) on humans carried out in concentration camps and elsewhere by the Nazi’s. We support the Declaration of Helsinki and other such agreements concerning the ethics of experementation on human subjects, that is one reason why we support animal research, it is a necessary precondition to many such experiments/trials. Simon probably didn’t reply because the ad Hitlerum argument is generally considered to be the lamest gambit in online debate (for example I could counter that the Nazi’s were also the first European government to (briefly) ban animal research when they came to power…but then you can find Nazi examples on just about any side of any argument, so what’s the point).

    Supporters of medical research certainly don’t engage in the kind of behavior you are accusing us of, and if any did Pro-Test and Speaking of Research would not hesitate to condemn them utterly. The public can see this, which is why you lost their support so completely a few years ago. As for the police well if animal rights activists in the UK hadn’t resorted to letter bombs, car bombs, arson, harassment, assaults (baseball bats, brands etc), blackmail, grave robbery etc. the police and courts would not have had to take such a firm line with you lot. Those animal rights extremists now in jail in the UK are getting the just desserts for their criminal activities.

    As for the pharmaceutical industry I am no cheerleader of theirs, I recognize that they do some great research and have developed some wonderful products, but I’m also well aware that their primary goal is to generate revenue and that there are many examples where they have behaved unethically. I am a supporter of the Treatment Action Campaign, which takes the kind of rubust approach to pharmaceutical companies that I would like to see other patient advocacy groups adopt. Your problem is in the rush to find evidence to support yout animal rights agenda you are willing to embrace any half-baked idea or unsupported nonsense. For example in the Pfizer Trovan/Kanu case to which you refer there is no doubt that Pfizer behaved in a very unethical and scientifically sloppy manner, but the allegation that they “tormented and killed” children is a complete exaggeration. Likewise the examples (Baycol, Zyban, DDT, Benlate) are a mixture of compounds that are still in use because their benefits outweigh their side effects (Zyban, Benlate), a drug that was withdrawn after a rare serious side effect was identified during post-marketing surveillance (i.e. the system worked) and one where much of the evidence for toxicity comes from animal studies (DDT). I’m not saying that the system is perfect, it most certainly isn’t, but I believe that it can and should be improved. Better, animal research, better clinical trials, and better post-marketing surveillance are what is needed, not the council of despair that you appear to advocate.

    When I see what you anti-vivs wite I am reminded not only of the writings of the anti-abortion extremists who you seem to wish to emulate but also of the anti-healthcare reform nuts that have been brandishing guns outside town-hall meetings and spouting all kinds of crazy talk on the internet.

    Take a look in the mirror, you might not like what you see!

    In the meanwhile scientists will go on working to improve medicine and access to medical treatment

    1. Remind me why the research was unethical? Was it because they were against the consent of the patients or because they were on human animals?

      “We support the Declaration of Helsinki and other such agreements concerning the ethics of experementation on human subjects, that is one reason why we support animal research”

      How oxymoronic, you are against vivisecting human animals because you support vivisecting animals? Are you suffering from a biological identity crisis?

      Just to clarify, you all don’t support animal research – you support non-human research. There’s a big difference given that humans are infact animals, and you oppose the research on them as stated.

      Not sure why we remind you of anti-abordtionists. We are all (I can’t say for everyone, but generally) pro-choice – that’s why we support animal liberation.

      I know for sure that amongst your ranks of animal research supporters there are those who’d support experimenting on Jews again or homeless people, due to the increased accuracy and effectiveness.

      1. Mark,

        Clearly you’re insane. I’m not sure how to take your comments so I’ve chosen to laugh at them. Animal Rights people like yourself continually make these outlandish comments in the hopes of pissing one of us off. But when I read your comments they don’t make me mad, they give me a good chuckle. But hey, if that’s what you choose to believe, more power to you. I think you’re an idiot.

      2. Glad to hear I shut you up Simon, took a while though!!

        You think I’m insane? You’re the one who can’t answer a question or reply to comments because you have no reasoning behind your moral stance.

        Why assume I’m an animal rights activist? I’m not at all, I infact oppose animal rights along. I thought I told you to stop stereotyping Simon, it’s doesn’t help you.

        Shame you couldn’t answer my question:

        Remind me why the research was unethical? Was it because they were against the consent of the patients or because they were on human animals? But then again I didn’t expect you would be able to do that.

        Glad to hear you find it funny though, it’s refreshing.

        First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they violently oppose you. You’ve ignored us, you’ve now laughed at us – I’m luck this is the internet I imagine!

  7. You vivisectors claim that humans are more imprortant. Why then did Pfizer torment and kill african children in experiments only 5 years ago and why should those who made the decision to do this lead unmolested lives? You all appear to support the big drug companies who exist solely for their shareholders, for profit or do some of you have reservations about those who torture and kill humans as well as other animals for profit?
    In the UK alone at least 5 animal rights people have been killed by animal abusers and yes our addresses get put up on the internet, we get attacked by your friends in the police resulting in serious injuries (eg broken bones), get arrested unlawfully and get stuff sent through the post, phone callls etc. If I am attacked by one of you or your lackeys I will, if practicable, fight back, again if the only way I can save a victim from a violent thug is by using violence then so be it. I abhor gratuitous violence and I would not ever wish to see someone die in a burning building but you all indulge in grotesque violence as does the state stop the hypocrisy and face it. You lot win hands down on the violence front and just think if we kicked your door down, grabbed one of you and put you on trial (with AR activists on the jury) and then incaercerated you for 12 years because of your crimes you may well regard that as a violent act. As yet no-one has been seriously injured or killed by animal rights activists, vivisectors have killed and mutilated many humans with things like Baycol, Zyban, DDT, Benlate, ad infinitum.
    Tom, do you condemn non consensual experiments on humans by big pharma, will you speak out against it? Where do you all stand on experiments for pesticides, artificial colourings, floor cleaners, sweeteners, aromatherapy oils and the multitude of other non medical experiments which still take place?
    Do you all agree that a non-human life is so utterly
    worthless that it is justifiable to cause a life of misery, to torture and kill that being for an air freshener?
    By the way not one of you (or indeed any of us) is of more import than any one of your victims.

    1. The question from my comment here:

      Specifically the one asking whether you support the human animal vivisection in Nazi Germany, or whether you opposed these animal experiments? No reply indicates your support which isn’t suprising.

      If justifying animal liberation isn’t worth replying to then why claim that to undo extremism you should just talk about the importance of animal research?

      To me it looks like you’re going for the ‘if you ignore it, it’ll go away tactic’, but your blog is about not doing this!

      This hypocrisy amuses me – thoroughly.

      1. “No reply indicates your support”

        On what planet does no reply mean consent? No I abhor the Nazi experiments of the 1940s – however, like most people, I see human beings as being fundamentally different in faculties and rights to animals.

        We do not claim that we should just talk about the research, but that the focus on animal rights extremism detracts from the MORE important focus on the necessity for the research itself. People know that extremism exists, and most condemn it, however many people do not understand or know how animal research leads to treatments. Clearly you appaear to fall into this category.


      2. “On what planet does no reply mean consent?”

        On the planet of animal research supporters usually. I just didn’t expect some animal research to be opposed by you, I’m glad you clarified this for me.

        Of course human beings have different rights to non-humans, otherwise there wouldn’t be a movement (!) – but what justification is this? Not so long ago women and black people didn’t have rights, so the law quite obviously isn’t justification. Care to elaborate why non-humans shouldn’t be treated equally? Is it based on intelligence, size, ability, or any other social factors?

        I do understand how some animal research leads to treatements, such as those on human patients during the 1930/1940s – which we both ironically oppose. I have seen no evidence yet of non-human experiments aiding modern medicine however.

      3. Mark, the Nazi’s experiment on humans were universally condemned by the scientific community, to the extent that the results of that research were destroyed and never published. The idea behind that was that the means by which those data were acquired was so repulsive that it could not justify them ever being used.
        Now, it you AR activists think that animal research is equally morally repulsive, you should renounce any benefits that derive from animal research. You should sign a pledge stating that you will not use any medication or medical procedure that has been developed using animal research, even if you risk losing your life as the result. Would you sign such a pledge, Mark?

  8. I hope you reply to these comments Simon, otherwie you are going against your entire flow chart. You know, the one that starts with speaking up for research.

    Speak up then soldier!

  9. what we have to do first is to make injustice and cruelty visible to “put it” into peoples faces and say this is the truth. face it. and then do the rest…

  10. in addition i want to say that violence can only bring more violence and that the state and international organisations are trying to control and take advantage of us , by all means. have you heard of codex alimentarius, it’s the beggining of the end…
    their weapons power cant be compared to ours, do you thing they care about the minor damages that we’ll cause? they will enforce their guard they ‘ ll bring their troops out… and they will claim its all for your safety and well being! they say you attract and cause into the other person and to the world by what you think ,you act and you are. share your vision with the world and live the joy of it in your mind, do good deeds, become the change you want to see in the world and feel gratitude for what you already have because we have to admit that we have more than we need when some people don’t even have the basics… and pray and/ or wish well for the world. whatever you do to others and to the world it comes back to you…

  11. You have a point. We cannot remain passive. But what kind of violence and when and where violence is better to use? We need to be very discrete and thoughtful about this. We cannot act thoughtlessly because we’ll be doomed to fail. It’s like chess. we need strategy and think 10 moves ahead. we need reason to drive us because passion is blind. i support non-violence and i believe that there is always a better way and that even when you seem to have lost you may have won but not in the way we commonly think of winning …

  12. @Simon:
    Its NOT about Logic, Its about Love, Compassion and Being able to care for another Species other then Human….
    That is why Speciecism is the same as Racism, Sexism or Nazism
    Truth is you are a Soulless and Sadistic and Brutal and Uncaring Person who doesnt feel what the Monkey who was ubducted from Vietnam and brought to A Lab feels….Camille described it very well by saying:
    When they put you in a cage, rub caustic substances in your eyes, attach electrodes to your testicles, and start mutilating you without anesthetics… don’t worry,
    I’ll be the first person in the blogoshere calling for calm and patience while they eviscerate your sorry ugly ass. In fact, we’ll all join hands and sing “give peace a chance.”

    Problem is you only focused on saying: ugly ass
    instead of on the Beautifull Truth in the Beginning Sentences

    That only who feels it, knows it!
    Thats why im telling you that if u had only a few hours in the same condition those poor animals are forced into you would cry like a baby and scream from what your own Concience would do to you, because you would see yourself for who you really are….STOP advocating the EVIL VIVISECTORS and I tell you that NONE of them and their Associates will ever know Peace

  13. This is a disagreement over strategy that’s existed since the beginning of the movement. It’s at least 30 years old, if not older; this is not a “new” development, and it’s not evidence of a “fractured” movement. There have ALWAYS been at least two camps on this question, and (at least pre-internet) they never really talk to each other at all. They don’t really talk to each other NOW.

  14. WARNING? AR website? What is the warning? Compassion for animals!!!
    I guess the murderers of animals DO believe killing and torturing animals is a compassionate act. WOW!

  15. you want to see violence? look at the very industries we’re up against and the exploitation performed there!
    that is violence!!
    backed up by power and immense funding
    from people who could give a damn what and or who lives or dies in the name of corporate/personal financial gains…
    I am not even going to read this debate or get involved further , but I will say this…everything is a circle , it’s great that direct action and non direct action has been classified as violence and non violence (not really) I won’t call it that, direct takes care of the problem NOW, that cannot be more true, non direct action does have its upsides I don’t disagree with people taking the slow route everyone has their place,that’s fine!
    for someone to argue that liberating a beautiful creature from it’s suffering and disdain from humanity and show it love and freedom that makes a difference to that one animal, you changed time,you make an impact that is so strong most people cannot comprehend that…while non directly your still saving animals but all those directly saved would have died maybe even that very one in your arms whom you gave another chance to , that is not violent!
    that’s a saint, a savior , to go against the greatest oppressors is the only way anything has even been accomplished in any country .. for the most part .
    Whoever relates direct action to violence needs to re-examine the facts and really see whats going on here, from a larger perspective and stop being so damn sheltered , .I applaud anyone who goes vegan! you took a huge step in the right direction , I think anyone criticizing someone for not being vegan enough(unless they are cheating somehow) is a jackass..This classification needs to go ,people need to rise up,realize who is really violent here and why we do what we do…underlying it all is a love for the animals ,for me also the natural world in which sustains us..its a paradox we’re this day I have not seen a valid argument to defy direct action..its the now way and necessary!!!!



  16. Personally, I don’t come around to debate your pseudo-science blogs because it’s wholly irrelevant.

    You are all sadistic sociopath. If your research is so damned valuable to mankind, then volunteer your kids and your mothers and dissect them.

    Leave the innocent animals alone you soulless freaks.

  17. Shukes — You’re premise is wholly illogical and flawed in that vivisection HAS NOT cured malaria and children are STILL dying.

    Experiment on actual humans with diseases instead of tormenting the innocent!

      1. Yes Simon — without question…. I would absolutely volunteer… would you substitute a human baby to experimentation to cure some condition from which you suffered? Probably not. Well, there is no difference in the degree that a human or non-human sufferes… only arbitrary speciesist distinctions.

        I would NEVER want an innocent being to be subjected to torture for my benefit.

    1. Camille,

      I completely retract my comment about asking if you would volunteer. I was just made aware that you find that threatening and go crying to all your AR friends. I was merely wondering if you would do what you ask others to do, but I no longer care.

    1. So you do personally advocate killing scientists? Could you do the deed yourself, or do you just sit behind your computer spewing nonsense?

  18. At some point I’ll have to get an anti-vivisectionist to explain to me why it’s fine to let millions of children die from malaria rather than try and cure it using the only mean available.

    It seems rather odd that the people who want to actually help the most (curing both humans and animals of disease) are called sick by a group who want to put the few before the many.

    1. Late reply but anyway:

      Non-human vivisection is not the only means available, there is also human vivisection, but that is as unethical as non-human vivisection (despite obviously being more relibable, effective and accurate).

      In reply to your second statement, the Nazi’s thought the same – it was rather odd being called sick when all they were trying to do was put a few before the many to cure deseases.

  19. Simple Simon,

    I’ve never harmed another being in my life. But do you really want to talk about hate? Yes, I HATE sociopaths who derive some prurient delight from inflicting agonizing brutality on the innocent. Yes, Simon — I hate all of you.

    And the problem, Simon, is that our society has some delusion about what vivisection is — an innocuous image of a white mouse in a maze. Well, you sick freak — if people knew what you did behind concrete walls in nondescript torture chambers, my allies and I would cease to be a concern.

    At that point, you would be in the hands of the TRULY violent people — society.

    1. Camille,

      I think we’re done now. I won’t convince you I’m right and you won’t convince me you’re right so this argument is pointless. Have a wonderful day.

    2. Camillie.
      As I hesitate even responding to you because I sense it is useless, I am shocked at your first statement.

      “I’ve never harmed another being in my life” and I question can this really be true? Has this person never squished a mosquito as it bit their arm? Do they not have their house sprayed for pests? Do they opt to not use cars or other forms of public transportation that could kill bugs on their windshield as they drive along the road?

      Surely such a person does not exist…no wonder your views are so , you have been trapped inside your small village with no transportation to get you to normalcy.

      1. I think what Camillie means is she’s never harmed another being in her life unless it was by accident or in self-defence.

        Surely such a person does not exist who hasn’t accidently harmed an animal, human or non-human, or had to defend themselves against someone. Does this mean we shouldn’t treat humans equally too?

        Why is it people always think activists are pacified by non-human animals? Such an ironic analogy.

      2. Furthermore, do you opt to not use cars or other forms of public transportation that could kill human children or adults as they drive along the road? Didn’t think so.

      3. Mark,

        That AR activists haven’t killed anyone yet is pure luck. It’s not as if these are master bomb builders, they’re making crude incindiary devices using info found on websites and in books. It’s just lucky for us they haven’t actually killed anyone, although I don’t think they’d care if they did. They claim to abhore violence while having no problem perpetrating it.

      4. Mark,

        I also find it interesting that you guys never show up to make comments when we post the articles based on science or the one we had on animal care takers. You only show up when we submit an ariticle critical of you. Can’t argue the science aspect as easily as making snide comments about us personally I guess.

      5. Simon, you didn’t answer my question:

        Do you opt to not use cars or other forms of public transportation that could kill human children or adults as they drive along the road? Or can you not argue about the morality here, instead just make snide comments about us personally? Do you just go onto a completely different subject when you can’t answer a question? Thought so. You don’t suprise me Simon. Also, don’t bother talking about personal snide comments when you’re full off them, it doesn’t help you.

        An animal liberationist has killed an opponent before, so your comment is irrelevant and incorrect. An no, it wasn’t by mistake, unless assassination is an error.

        Furthermore, not all animal rights activists oppose violence, as your article very much points out. Activists oppose the oppression and exploitation of animals, how to achieve the end of this is the debate here. Keep up Simon, read the article first it helps.

        And my apologies, I wasn’t here when you posted propaganda about vivisection. I’m not into exploiting individuals so try and keep away from here. PS – Just because I defend militant direct action, doesn’t make me a militant. Quit the stereotypying while you can.

        Speaking of science though, do you oppose the vivisection on human animals, such as in Nazi Germany? The results were quite effective back then unfortunately, but do you oppose this science?

    3. No, Camile, but you sure as heck don’t mind making the bullets for someone else to fire (metaphorically speaking) can for violence against any group or person long enough and some one is going to decide to do it.

  20. Speciesism is the malignancy that allows human degenerates to subjugate, torture and exploit my fellow beings with impunity.

    It never ceases to amaze me that the most despicable forms of life on this planet — vivisectors — can philosophize about “rational thought”. You all need to jump in cages and start mutilating each other.

    Understand that if the law did not make your obscene sadism socially-acceptable as well as profitable, you would all be holed up in backyard bunkers torturing nonhuman animals and children.

    Without the law to protect your sorry sociopathic asses, society would be burning down your torture chambers and exacting long-overdue “justice”. I can’t wait for the day.

    1. Such a sad comment on society that someone could feel such hate. My guess is that Camille can be so hateful because she hides behind the anonymity of the internet. I really doubt she could do the deed she promotes herself because when it really comes to it most AR people are cowards. They always want someone else to actually do the work for them so they can just rant about it. The day will never come when the you’re side will win. And your whole comment about the law is just nonsensical and doesn’t even merit a response.

      1. Indeed it is a sad comment on society when the public feel such hate. Reminds me of days before black people or women didn’t have rights. Oh the hate.

  21. Tom,

    Great posting! I think a lot of people don’t realize how many of these groups really exist. PETA gets all the attention along with the HSUS, which compared to some of the more radical groups look pretty tame. I can’t even begin to imagine the whining that would ensue from these people if scientists suddenly began advocating killing the protesters. Can you imagine what they would say if I started a web site that printed their names, addresses, contact info and said that, while I hate violence, I wouldn’t mind if a few of them ended up in the cross hairs of a sniper rifle? They’d be foaming at the mouth in righteous indignation!

    1. I’d personally be grateful to see that people are angry enough to act, it would tell us that we are definitely getting somehwere. White people used to send death threats to black people, men used to threaten women with rape all the time. It made it clear that those liberationists were a threat to society as a whole. I look forward to that day when we are that recognised threat.

      1. Are you seriously trying to equate your cause with the fight to end slavery? Really? That’s pretty arrogant but hey, whatever helps you sleep at night. You guys are less like the ones fighting for equal rights and more like the hooded idiots that were doing the terrorizing.

      2. I wasn’t equating the cause with human slavery. I was pointing out that social change is made when radicals become a threat to the society as a whole.

        The very fact that human animal slavery was fought therefore proves animal slavery still exists.

        If you want to talk about successful terrorists then look no further than the Black Panthers, African National Congress and Suffragettes. They knew how to properly terrorise and did a good job of it.

        Women burning Oxford Uni boathouse and the Home Secretary’s home, both priceless hooded memories.

  22. Kevin,

    It is a bit bizarre isn’t it? But then such reasoning takes a grounded and sane person, two qualities sadly absent from most animal rights supporters. I’ve read the Tomas Paine’s Corner and they are group of loonies. They hate everything, although don’t seem to have a problem living in this country and taking advantage of all it has to offer. I don’t see many of them volunteering to leave for somewhere better. Seems pretty hypocritical to me, but again, no rational thought.

    My favorite word by these morons is “specieism” WTF is that??

      1. Well you know what to do Simon, find a better aricle! Don’t just say WTF when you don’t understand the meaning of a word, it’s intelectual ignorance.

  23. Interesting that many animal rights activists believe that “the ends don’t justify the means” that no benefits from animal research are good because the animals lost; however, when it comes to killing researchers to stop animal research the means justifies the end…seems a little backasswards to me.

  24. Tom,

    When they put you in a cage, rub caustic substances in your eyes, attach electrodes to your testicles, and start mutilating you without anesthetics… don’t worry,

    I’ll be the first person in the blogoshere calling for calm and patience while they eviscerate your sorry ugly ass. In fact, we’ll all join hands and sing “give peace a chance.”

    Camille Marino

Comments are closed.