AR Philosophy > Debating AR

I read the "10 stupid arguements" your webpage on and i must say, wow. Your logic on the following quote bobbles my mind.

If you want a real-life arguement, call (702)544-3796.
Always happy to comment on your openions,
Jake Shealy


"5. More animals are given the gift of life because we use them for food or for experiments. This "logic" would justify parents in abusing and even killing their own children. In addition, it is highly questionable whether animals raised in factory farms or laboratories are better off for having been born."

Jake: How does the logic of researching medicine to cure heartworms in dogs by using it on them justify the scientist who did the testing to kill his kids?

ALF response: The fallacy that a dog "benefits" from merely being alive, and that his "quality of life" doesn't matter, is more clearly demonstrated when humans are substituted into the equation. NEITHER is justified. Does this logic seem far-fetched? In the span of human history, it was a mere blink of the eye ago that in the United States it was accepted to be a parent's right to make a child work all day -- until child labor laws were passed. For a reminder, see Domination History. That logic, that "any life is better than no life", was morally questionable then, and it is morally questionable now.

Jake: And for your information, not all dogs are used in laboratory testing. I have a dog, and by giving him tested heartworm medication, he had never developed them. Here's a question for your, if a puppy is born with no illness, should we kill him to reduce the amount of used vaccinations, and therefore the demand, or maybe the mother should kill him, since that is what you are saying.

ALF response: Please re-phrase the question. We can think of several things you might be saying. But any logic that gets you to the conclusion that we advocate the killing of any sentient being is circuitous, at best. Please read our Credo.

Moving on to another quote.


"7. How do you know animals feel pain? Humans and other animals have common ancestors, and therefore have similar nervous systems, and exhibit similar responses to similar stimuli. There is no more reason to believe that animals do not feel pain than to believe that other humans do not feel pain. Of course, we cannot know that animals feel pain, but then we cannot know that other humans do either, or even that they exist. You might be a figment of my imagination."

Jake: About the part refering to humans and animals having common ancestors, is the a 100% proven fact?

ALF response: The point is that humans and some animals have similar nervous systems, which is true regardless of how we got them.

Jake: Doesn't Creation come from the Bible, a book that has never (that's right, not once) been proven false?

ALF response: 1.) It's never been proven correct, either. 2.) Any logical position can't stand on who says something is true. 3.) But for your entertainment, here are two links to Biblical Errors.

Jake: Evolution is a theory based on one man's obvervations that different birds looked similar, but had different characteristics. Gee, are humans like that at all? Our anatomy is similar, but dont Afircan Americans look different than Whites, who look different than Asian, who look different than Latin Americans? So do humans and dogs really have that similar of a nervous system? Mabye that should be researched a little more.

ALF response: Congratulations! You may be the last man on earth to try using the argument that animals don't feel pain. Scientists not only believe that some animals feel pain, physically and emotionally, but that some animals feel pain more acutely than humans. Do Animals Feel Pain? Toss in some hints at bigotry and we get an ugly picture of your mind.

Jake: But wait, we can use aniamls for testing because its "cruel". Oh well, I guess your points can never fully be tested by what you are proposing. I guess we don't want another discovery like that of the vaccine for Pollio. AIDS isn't that big of a deal is it? It's only only going to wipe out Africa in, what, 20 years if it keeps up the way it is. We're not THAT close to curing cancer. We would need, what, 10 years of dedicated research on animals and humans. We all know animals for commercial products is wrong, but we'll see if your openion changes when you get AIDS from taking the place of a monkey in a test. (But we both know YOU would never subject yourself to that. No, I would not either)

ALF response: Where is YOUR proof that using animals today would accelerate scientific discoveries? Don't worry, you don't have to do any homework. Dr. Vernon Coleman, among other scientists Anti-Viv with Ph.D.'s, states that testing on animals today impedes progress, and Dr. Coleman challenged anyone to prove otherwise. Coleman challenge. So far, the most brilliant minds have not accepted his challenge.

Jake: You are a fanatic, plain and simple. If you think the law needs to be changed, go blow up a lab that uses animals, you will see what the law thinks of you killing animals and humans.

ALF response: Thank you kindly for the legal advice.