Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
×

More from deviantART



Details

Submitted on
December 28, 2013
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
1,704 (3 today)
Favourites
2 (who?)
Comments
75
×
I'm not afraid of opening some cans of worms, so let me voice my opinion on something that happened recently that really infuriated me.

Caterina Simonsen is a 25 years old girl from my very city, Padova. She has four rare diseases (primary immunodeficiency, a deficit in C and S vitamins, a deficit in Alpha-1 Antitrypsin, a pathology of the phrenic nerves that causes paralysis in the diaphragm) and a more common, benign tumor of the pituitary gland. She is alive thanks to medicines that have been achieved through animal experimentation.
Details are available unfortunately only in Italian as far as I could find on the net, but suffice say that if you google her name you'll see that she has to live with a breather constantly on.
On facebook, she explained her situation and just said "i'm alive thanks to animal experimentation". In few hours more than three hundreds of people covered her in insults and wished her to die.
She replied with two videos (available on youtube but again, in Italian) where she explains the medicines she has to take and her life. Not as an appeal to emotions, but to show what her life is like.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbTfRM…
www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbwBuH…
She adds an invitation to ex parliament member Michela Brambilla (who in recent times fomented an illegal break in into an animal experimentation facility, which was subsequently closed) and the european animalist party to fight the use of animals where not fundamental for human existence (she listed hunting, slaughtering and use for fur clothing). She added that instead of raising so much ado and obstacling the work of researchers, they could raise funds and invest in the pursuit of an alternative, equally valid method to animal experimentation. She also asked them to take a stance against the people who wish death to her because of what she previously said. For the record and just to make things clear, Caterina is vegan and has to integrate iron because her diet is too low on it, as she says in the first of the two videos.
Michela Brambilla and the aforementioned party did not give any reply.

I don't like animal rights activists. Amongst other reasons, they use ignorance and appeal to the emotional, rather than the rational side of people, to further their cause. Look at PETA's shock advertisings where they objectivize the female naked body for the sake of catching audience by feeding controversies into the media. It's cheap and ridiculous.
But mainly, animal rights movements and their adherents like to mix things up equalling animal experimentation with vivisection (they are not the same thing, check wikipedia or a dictionary and see the differences) and with the treatment of cattle, the "horrors of slaughterhouses" etc. thus committing an enormous logical fallacy, because these are completely unrelated things.
Another common behaviour I've witnessed amongst animal rights supporter is a complete disregard for the human condition in favor of that of animals. It's not uncommon to hear animalists claim that they'd rather save their dog's life than a human being's.

I am completely disgusted, to say the least. So next time some of these ignorant fucks blathers about stopping animal testing, I'd like them to remember that not only people like Caterina depends with their lives on medicines that are tested on animals for their efficacy, but even common antibiotics and pharmaceuticals used in veterinary medicines are tested on animals. And that no, despite what you love to picture in your sick, misinformed minds, testing doesn't involve crazed psycho scientists that drool and have repeated orgasms while torturing poor innocent immaculate puppies. It involves making sure that those medicines are effective and safe for use. It's not done to satisfy sadists, it's done to further science and save lives. And if you think that the life of a ferret or dog is more valuable than that of a person, then no amount of sensible reasoning will save you from your maddened stupidity, so this whole journal entry is not for you.

I'll leave you with this video about the hypocrisy of these animal activists.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmXyf2…
Add a Comment:
 
:icongeek385:
This is what I will say:

Even if I were against animal testing, I would still nt wish death to those that use products which were first tested on animals.

I dont wish death to those alife today by advances to fight horrible diseases that were made by infecting black people when they were treated as less than human.

I think a human life is much more valuable than that of a non human animal.

That said, I believe it is extremely important to not put all animal ativists ithe same bag. Appeal to emotions happen for any propaganda. Its how advertisement works. I know because I studied it. 

I know there is a lot of animal deaths that are done merely for gastronomical pleasure (almost any burger) and I do am against that. I think it is a worthy cause to be against that, and I do believe one day we will look back in horror at the times in which we killed animals not for survival or development of medicine, but because they are yummy.

I am also a vegetarian and have outstanding test results on my health.

Dat all I wanted to say.
Reply
:icontheburningtree:
TheBurningTree Jan 5, 2014  Student Writer
First of all, sorry if I said something strange - this is serious problem and I'm not Englishman ^^' I use English every day but rather specialistic language connected with technologies...

I was strongly connected with animals right activists, in fact - I was one of them. Yes, exactly. WAS. This is very specific group of people.

They are - no doubt - hypocrisy. This is exactly why I leave this group. It's impossible for me to say about animals rights and in the same time screaming about killing people. WTF? Not a long time ago I found advertisement of man who want to find new home for his at, because he has not enough money to care it properly. And the animals right activists commented this advertisement with the way full of pure agression. They are some serous man who deleted it and very good.

(Here I make big, very, very BIG digression and then send it to hell because sense of my comment was totally losed. But, one more, connected with one of your comment. Monkeys are used in experiments, but not connected with testing medicines but with neurology. Nevermind.)

I agree with you in this specific case. But I don't like radical opinions because they are always in some part simply false.

Animals rights activist are not only them who said such things and wanna kill people for their dog - they are in mainly part normal people, who saved many, many animals - beaten, starved, bad treaten. So I have only the small ask - don't forget about that side of problem.

Because - with this activists - is slowly the same problem as with feminist. Everybody who scream so stupid things loud are called in such way and the idea is forgotten.

In fact, nobody, who never saved even one small pet/animal cannot be animals right activist. This is like me called myself musican, because I know what the piano is.
Reply
:icontaziobettin:
TazioBettin Jan 6, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
Well, it is a matter of definition then mainly.
When I speak of animal activists, I mean those hypocrital extremists. The others who do not like animals to suffer and do what they can to live in balance with them, I just call sensible people.

Speaking of animal rights. Now that's another big topic and I hope I'm not using a difficult phrasing.
Animals cannot have rights.
Rights are a human abstraction. Animals cannot think abstract. Therefore they cannot understand rights.
Rights come with duties, first of all, the duty of respecting other individual's right. Animals do not abide to the duty of respecting another animal's rights. So they cannot have rights. If an animal has the right to decide of its life, which is the prime and foremost right, then it must also respect other animals' right to do the same. But a predator, like a cat, does not do that.
Giving rights to animals and not to other life forms like plants is similarly hypocrital. We value animals over vegetables on what criterium if not the fact that we're animals too and not vegetables? But does it make any difference outside of our scale of value? No. It is even scientifically proven that vegetables feel pain and even communicate with each other when they are under attack by secreting chemicals that other plants of the same species receive, and react to.
Oh and last but not least, as a primate omnivore it's my right to choose to eat meat. Giving the right to live to cattle infringes my right to fulfill my place in the food chain. Maybe I depend on meat. Maybe, like many, I cannot metabolize a sufficient quantity of proteins and iron from vegetables. What then?
An animal right activist in the meaning I use would say "you just deserve to die, the cattle is more important". Seriously, a lot of people says that. To the girl I'm talking about in this article, one said "i wouldn't sacrifice my goldfish for you: if you had died at nine nobody would care".

Accepting that life feeds on life without cruelty or without regret but by simply being is the only sensible thing that nobody does.
Not giving rights does not mean to freely slaughter and torture.
There already are strict laws against abuse and mistreat of pets without the need of granting rights.
Reply
:icongeek385:
Babies have rights before they understand what rights mean. As humans they should very well on my opinion have much higher rights than non human animals, but their having rights in itself should not be dependant on whether they understand them, but whether we should attribute it to them or not.

Animal rights make sense to me precisely because we should aim to be better than them. 

If a cow ever tried to kill me and somehow the more reasonable way to avoid it was instead of running to kill the cow, sure, I see nothing immoral on doing so and even after that enjoying it as a burger.

Havent had this scenario on my life ever though, so I decided to become veg. If I ever need meat to actually survive (as opposed to gastronomical pleasure) I would consume again.
Reply
:icontaziobettin:
TazioBettin Jan 6, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
Babies have limited rights. They cannot vote, cannot drive, cannot drink, cannot smoke and cannot own and manage property (in most countries). They are kept in a pocket reality until they come of an age when they are supposed to be able to understand rights and duties.
What is important is that the human mind created rights and the human mind can grasp them. The mind of an animal never will because it lacks the capability of abstractions.
Some rights are granted out of compassion even to the people with limited mental capabilities because they are just unfortunate members of our own same species.

Animal rights make no sense: what I just said stands entirely unchallenged and not disproven. Especially the bit where it's our responsibility to be responsible and not the animal's right to be protected. Our duty, not their right. No need to go as far as giving them rights, because, as I said, if you grant animals rights, testing medicine won't be possible, nor will it be possible to eat them because you'd be violating the prime right of being in control of one's life.
Reply
:icongeek385:
 I formulate that likewise, out of compassion, we should grant rights to other sentient beings, because they are also sentient.

That`s why limited rights would work for them as I see it. Way more limited than the limited rights of the most limited humans, but still, at least having the right to not be killed for gastronomical pleasure, I think, its a very fitting right for animals to have some day in the future.

Its a subjective matter though. Morality cannot be argued from a logical standpoint 100% unless we agree on the premises.

One of my premises is that suffering and killings are to be avoided regardless of the species. If you dont share this premise, there is not much I can say to  you.

What I do say, is that it is (thanks god) human to be compassionate to beings that will never be able to understand and give back such compassion even when they are from another species. Of course many animals have shown compassion to animals of others pecies, but given our greater intellect, I expect us to be a greater example of compassion even.

We can see suffering and consciously try to help others avoid it. This is beautiful and on my mind a moral duty. Many humans agree with this and become activists, which does not mean they oppose animal testing. It does not mean they dont oppose it either of course.

Many kinds of activists from many different stances exist. My point is that there are wonderful goals to have on animal activism, not that ALL animal activists have ALL their goals be good.

I dont have a formal stance on animal testing because I have nowhere near the kind of studies I would need to know how necessary they are or when. I do would say I assume many are indeed helpful to better it up for humans though, and as horrible as it is for other species capable of suffering of love of trust of care to have done upon them the horrible things done upon them... well, I can understand it more than "Mmmm I love the taste of meat! I want a Big Mac! Now do whatever you have to, me want yummy"
Reply
:icontaziobettin:
TazioBettin Jan 7, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
"One of my premises is that suffering and killings are to be avoided regardless of the species."

That should include vegetables which you conveniently ignored.

And predator animals. Are you going to stop them? Lions hunt by suffocating their prey crushing its windpipe in their jaws. Crocodiles drown their preys. How about just accepting that life preys on life and that death is part of the cycle of life?

Animals sentient? What does sentient mean?

But enough, you clearly aren't following my logical passages because you're just ignoring all of them.

And god doesn't exist. Thank you.
Reply
:icongeek385:
Already said less plants die in a vegetarian diet than a non vegetarian one.

There is a big difference between knowing that suffering is oart of life and being willing to inflict it because one likes the taste of a burger.
Reply
:icontaziobettin:
TazioBettin Jan 7, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
1) false. Industry does not conceive the idea of diminishing production. So you can change one cultivation into another, but as you have both vegans and non vegans now, you only obtain that cultivations intended for cattle for non vegan diet be converted into cultivations for vegan, with no decrease in total cultivation, and this is merely for an economical reason. The decrease of production is not an option for any industry.

2) logical fallacy, the reason you give, "because one likes the taste of burger", is not the reason for a non vegan diet, or at least not the only reasonable one. Biologically we're omnivores. You want proof? We have canines. Vegan diets can cause imbalances in protein (those of meat are different) and iron (unless you eat tons of spinach, and I mean literally tons, you do not have a sufficient iron intake) and some people simply cannot bear it.
Further flaw in your logic: if you think you are not inflicting pain when you kill vegetables, you are mistaken. They have receptors of pain and they even communicate chemically between each other when attacked and damage. That is scientifically proven. You just cannot hear them scream when you cut them. As such, the pain argument is hypocrital.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:icontheburningtree:
TheBurningTree Jan 6, 2014  Student Writer
Hmmm, I think I must agree with you that is the problem of definition.

When I said "animal rights" I mean "ability to live in proper conditions and die with minimal pain". Nothing else.
I'm not sure how it looks like in Italy - in my country there is big problem with protecting animals from human cruelty. Yes, we also have some laws against that but they are not enough... and they are not executing in proper way.

For me making animals and plant equal is like making animals and humans equal. Not, wait the moment - animal is closer to human than to plant. And animal is over vegetable because it is much closer to us.

I have nothing to people eating meat. I just have something to people who breed animals for meat in bad conditions, against law - as I said in my country this is big problem. And this is question of my religion, but eating or not meat is for me private decision of every human.

As I said I agree with you - exremists said things being pure stupidity. The life of animal never should be more important than life of human.
Reply
Add a Comment: