http://www.negotiationisover.net/
posted by NIO February 15, 2012
Camille was arrested for protesting this - The sadist torturing monkey 44D was
not
Discussion: The Arrest of Camille Marino,
Compassion, the Sadism of Vivisection...
The Southern Poverty Law Center
monitors and sheds light on hate groups. They targeted Camille Marino of
Negotiation is Over as a potentially dangerous individual for exposing the
cruelty of vivisectors at the University of Florida and the University of
Michigan. When Camille was arrested on February 4th SPLC issued an article which
allowed for comments. (article - appendix A). At first there was a lot of
cheering because this 'wacko' was arrested. Later a discussion ensued after a
statement that perhaps it was vivisectors who were the terrorists.
If you
want to add a comment to support Camille Marino or shed light on the sadism of
vivisection the discussion is on the following website:
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2012/02/06/radical-animal-rights-activist-arrested-at-university-of-florida/
some of the comments:
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February 7th, 2012 at 2:26
pm
When those defending the weak and defenseless are viewed as the
criminals, while those who commit the atrocities are considered pillars of
society, it is no wonder there is so much rage and injustice within
families, towards: the public in general, immigrants, the poor, racial or
religious minorities. and the disenfranchised.
When an organization
working for justice ignores the terrible violence that Camille Marino was
protesting and labels her as hateful, it diminishes your position as a just
organization.
'How can we speak of right and justice if we take an
innocent creature and shed its blood?' Isaac Bashevis Singer, Nobel Laureate
in Literature
Aron said,
on February 7th, 2012 at 4:19 pm
Ruth,
Human beings are more important than lab rats.
Done deal.
Justin said,
on February 7th, 2012 at 6:40 pm
Most radical animal rights groups tend to have an anarchist ideology. Dr.
Steve Best, who is one of the ideological figures of the movement and an
open supporter of Ms Marino, has written extensively about the topic. Look
up his manifesto for total liberation, or search for'vegan anarchism'.
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February 8th, 2012
at 7:14 am
Jainism is a time honored religion, thousands of years old. It
has understood that the terrible violence done to animals, viewed as a
necessary evil by others, does as much harm to those commiting the violence,
as to the animal victims.
Societies, such as the jains of india, which
practise non-violence to all beings, have a lower rate of human on human
violence. They live peacefully with all their neighbors. They do not grab
their neighbors land, bulldoze their homes or kill their children.
The harm done to the human spirit by allowing for the terrible cruelty to
animals both on the slaughter house floor and in laboratories, easily
escalates to the rage we see in society today.
Isaac Bashevis Singer
was right: 'How can we speak of right and justice if we take an innocent
creature and shed its blood?' Isaac Bashevis Singer, Nobel Laureate
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February 8th, 2012
at 9:21 am
Justin,
You are misinformed about who defines the animal
rights movement. I would respectfully suggest you read the works of Law
Professor Gary Francione, published by Columbia University press. These
works are based on the premise of complete non-violence to animals and
humans alike.
He understands that non-violence is the greatest force for
good and perpetuating a view that animals may be harmed for human benefit
undermines everyone.
I suggest beginning with 'Animals as Persons'.
Aron said,
on February 8th, 2012 at 11:14
am
To all of you 'Animal Liberation' vegan types who stopped by: if we
were not supposed to consume animal products (read: MEAT) why did we evolve
with incisors and canines? Last I checked, herbivorous diets would only need
molars to grind up plant matter'
Steve said,
on February 8th, 2012 at
11:32 am
Ruth,
I am a big fan both of Francione's work and of
nonviolence as a general matter. I have been involved in nonviolent
resistance activities for many years, including very actively opposing the
UK involvement in Iraq. I am a vegan and have been one now for over a year
(I was vegetarian before that for years and then I read Francione). I reject
all animal use.
I am confused by your expression of support for Marino.
Marino threatens people and posts personal information about the families of
people who exploit animals; she promotes personal violence. She encourages
really violent behaviour.
I am in favour of ending all animal use but I
fail to understand how Marino's conduct can be defended in light of your
acceptance of nonviolence. As a practical matter, if animal use is ever
going to end, it will, as Francione says, require a paradigm shift away from
the notion of animals as property and a recognition that all violence,
including racism, sexism, heterosexism, classism, and speciesism, must be
rejected. That requires a massive progressive educational effort against all
institutionalized violence. That's what we should be working to encourage.
I also think that what people like Marino do is counterproductive.I cannot
tell you the number of people who have told me, 'hey, don't talk to me about
animal rights, those people think it's okay to kill people'. To rephrase
what you say above, 'perpetuating the notion that violence is the solution
for violence undermines everyone'!
Steve
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February 8th, 2012
at 12:33 pm
Steve,
Thank you for the opportunity to explain my support
of Camille. Though misguided in her use of intimidation, she was completely
outspoken about the role of abusers and did have the right to expose them to
public scrutiny. I do not condone intimidation or threats, but the
feistiness with which she operated, such as suing UF for information on
their vivisection activities. Though I am absolutely opposed to the use of
violence, I do understand how some who care so profoundly for animals and
see so much abuse and cruelty are driven to the threat of violence. They
feel they have no other options.
Gandhi had an interesting approach to
violence. He believed completely in the power of non-violence, but did
recognize that such high standards were not possible by everyone, as
non-violence is a very difficult position to live by. He went so far as to
say that if you cannot practise non-violence, then violence is preferable to
abject surrender to evil,
We live in a society which takes it cue on the
treatment of animals from the semitic religious concept of dominion, which
at its core allows for their harm and slaughter, in terms of Gary Francione,
they are human property, who may be disposed of based on human need. With
the framework of what is called dominion, it is virtually impossible to
obtain rights for animals.
India which despite the existence of diverse
multi-cultural influences, has at the core of its mainstream religions the
belief of ahimsa, which grants the right to remain free from human harm to
ALL who live: animals and humans. Within this framework animal acitivsts
have been able to obtain meaningful results of compassion for animals'and
are not driven to the despair of violence.
Aron said,
on February 8th, 2012 at
2:42 pm
Steve and Ruth,
I'm still waiting for an answer. You might
also answer why it is alright for animals in the wild to kill other animals
for food, yet it is unspeakably evil for human beings to do the same?
Would you also prefer that clinical trials skip the animal testing stage
altogether, and jump straight to human tests? Is the life of a single D.
Melanogaster worth just as much as that of an H. Sapiens?
Lex said,
on February 8th, 2012 at 3:28 pm
Ruth Eisenbud , by protecting the weak you mean like posting pictures of
children of the person's Camille Marino was harrasing on her site? What was
the point in that?
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February 8th,
2012 at 4:52 pm
Lex,
Camille was driven to use intimidation because
the terrible violence done to animals in laboraties is considered
legitimate. It is legitimized by the biblical view that necessary cruelty is
considered righteous. This is not an excuse, but an explanation.
Outing
the vivisectors was appropriate given the context of their defiance and
intention to continue the brutal violation of defenseless creatures. Their
children should have been off limits.
Perhaps it was the biblical
mandate of an eye for an eye that sparked the desire to intimidate. It was
not appropriate, but neither is the extreme cruelty of the vivisectors.
Violence leads to violence, If the vivisectors had not maimed, tortured and
killed innocent animals, there would have been no need to try and stop them
using the methods they understand the best ' fear, power over and
intimidation.
The best solution to end the violence on both sides is a
position that understands the value of non-violence: that the lives of both
humans and animals are worthy of respect and compassion.
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February 8th, 2012
at 5:01 pm
Aron,
It always amazes me when man proclaims his
superiority over the animals, and with it the right to kill, just as they
do.
Research data have shown that often benefits of a therapy or drugs
that are successful on animals fail to obtain the same results on humans. In
fact may even be harmful.
The model which grants the highest value to
animal lives is innately unjust and irrational. A rescue dog who has saved
many lives may be used as a laboratory subject, needless to say without
consent. On the other hand a serial killer must sign a consent form. When
more rights are given to a sadistic killer then to a helpful, good natured
dog it puts into question the idea than man is above the animals.
Laura Campbell said,
on February 8th, 2012
at 6:43 pm
May there come a day, and soon, when all animal-abusing
sadistic cowards (who are also abusers of helpless people) and their
supporters are treated as the disgusting criminals they are' scourges they
are. I wish for them, simply: justice.
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February 8th, 2012
at 10:52 pm
Aron,
If man is exalted above all the other animals, it is
inconsistent to say that because they kill so should he.
Using animals as
models for humans is unreliable, as treatments that work on them, do not
necesarrily work on humans. For additional information I recommend the
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine website.
Steve said, on February 9th, 2012 at 8:59 am
Aron, you ask why it is not acceptable for humans to eat animals but it is
acceptable for animals to eat other.
The answer is that we make moral
choices and animals don't at least as far as we know. Your question is no
different from asking why is it morally wrong for humans to kill other
humans when animals kill each other.
There's another part to that as
animals who eat other animals are obligate carnivores. Humans aren't. We can
be very healthy as vegans and many studies show that a vegan diet can be
more healthy.
Lex, I agree with you. I object to the use of animals but I
fail to see how encouraging the harassment and intimidation of the children
of animal users does any good and isn't completely hypocritical even given
the views of people like Marino.
Ruth, I apologise but I am still
confused by your endorsement of nonviolence on one hand, and what appears to
be your acceptance of it on the other.
You talk about animal 'abusers.'
In a world in which almost everyone eats animals, why characterise as
'abusers' only those who use animals in research? As Francione argues, there
is no significant difference between a person who eats 70 chickens a year
and a researcher who uses 70 rats. They are both engaged in immoral
behaviour. He argues that if you are not willing to characterise your
nonvegan parents as 'abusers' and advocate violence against them (and no one
would or should do that!), what is the moral reason that justifies treating
researchers any differently?
Whilst I am quite convinced that we cannot
justify any animal use, I am also convinced that violence is not going to
solve any problem.
Steve
Aron said,
on February 9th, 2012 at 9:27
am
Ruth and Steve,
While I understand and appreciate your points of
view, especially regarding higher animals (dogs, etc.). However, I have made
the moral decision to continue eating steak and I hope to live that choice
to its fullest.
As one of my favorite bumper stickers proclaims, 'Man
didn't climb to the top of the food pyramid to eat parsnips!'
(My other
favorite bumper sticker is 'Love people: cook them good food.')
:)
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February 9th,
2012 at 9:40 am
Laura,
Thank you for focusing the discussion on the
animals.
Yes, vivisectors are criminals. If they did to humans, what they
do to animals, they would be considered dangerous psychopaths. They
committed far more violence than Camille, yet they remain free to carry on
with their sadistic work. When children commit animal abuse, this is viewed
as a potential harbinger of future violence to humans. When a child pulls
the wings off a butterfly, it is considered an act of abuse. When a
vivisector does the same, it is viewed as legitimate science. Those who are
willing to torture, maim and kill innocent animals, should be viewed as a
potential threat to society, as they have very little empathy towards the
suffering of others. Within the context of the dominion model, it is
unlikely that their cruelty will be condemned, as it is easily justified as
necessary by those who benefit financially.
India on the other hand
banned the export abroad of its indigenous free roaming monkeys to protect
them from the harm inflicted by institutions such as the University of
Florida. The more compassionate view of animals based on ahimsa aims to put
an end to the abuse carried out in the name of science. Dissection, there,
is banned for all high school students in every state, to protect their
reverence for life. A new law reduces the use of dissection to ZERO in
Universities as well.
With Camille out of the picture for now, UF is
free to continue terrorizing its incarcerated animals.
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February 9th, 2012
at 9:59 am
Steve,
I am not sure how you deduced that I support meat
consumption. I am vegan and encourage everyone I know to be vegan as well.
However being vegan alone will not end the suffering of animals incarcerated
and tormented in laboratories. If they were human, troops would be brought
in to free them. Since the USA is a dominion nation, the suffering of these
animals is trivialized and they are treated as innanimate objects rather
than sentient beings.
I will try and explain again. I do not support or
endorse violence. I do not support intimidation. On the other hand we must
shed light on the suffering endured by animals in whatever arena of animal
abuse they may find themselves, be it a laboratory, a circus, a zoo, or on
the slaughter house floor. It is a psychological truism that a problem
cannot be solved until it is first acknowledged.
The campaign waged by
Gandhiji was called Satyagraha ' the way of truth. We must present the truth
of animal abuse, wherever it is found, that and educating people about the
benefits of a vegan diet, are valid means for ending animal suffering.
To
further clarify. I do not encourage or endorse violence. As noted,
intimidation is not appropriate. If on the other hand abusers insist on
covering up their sadism, then legal ways such as a law suit to obtain
information is a valid tool.
We must first relinquish the idea of animals
as property, which has been entrenched since biblical times with the notion
of necessary cruelty, if we are to move forward, as has been the case in
India.
Ruth
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February 9th, 2012
at 10:08 am
Aron,
You do not understand the point being made by Steve
and me. If as you claim that man is superior to the animals, then surely it
would be based on a quality which elevates , rather than diminishes us.
Surely awareness of the suffering of others and empathy for it are among the
higher human attributes, yet you mock these virtues with bumper sticker
humor.
What exactly is a lower animal? Is it a cow, with five senses or a
pig, who fares better on intelligence tests than do dogs.
The hierarchy,
where you have placed yourself at the pinnacle is fraught with
irrationality, yet you cling to it with such unquestioning ferocity. Perhaps
you ought to consider the moral ramifications of your position.
Aron said,
on February 9th, 2012 at 11:36
am
Ruth,
I will gladly do so. Over my lunch, consisting of a pork chop
sandwich.
(Moralize to me all you wish: I feel there is nothing wrong
with my lifestyle, and as such see no reason to change. I have no issue with
veganism and vegans in general. Just keep your views to yourself, and I'll
do the same. I'm not going to attempt to turn you into an omnivore. I would
ask that you afford me the same common courtesy.)
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February 9th, 2012
at 12:03 pm
Steve,
I take your question seriously and will try to
explain it in a different way.
I do not support or endorse any violence,
including intimidation. However I do understand how someone who cares
profoundly about the violence inflicted on animals, when there is no legal
recourse, would turn to violence as a means of liberating the victims.
I
respect Camille for fighting the evil of vivisection, in the way that she
understood to be most helpful. Though her view on how to bring about change
is different than my own, I respect her intention to put a stop to such
cruelty. Gandhi understood the intention of vivisection and denounced it:'I
abhor vivisection with my whole soul. All the scientific discoveries stained
with innocent blood I count as of no consequence.' Gandhi
Exposing those
who participate in this evil, for their own gain, is as essential as calling
for a vegan diet.
In the long run, violence is not a real solution, but
for the animals who have been liberated, it means everything.
Eastern
religions take intention into consideration when a wrong has been committed.
I believe that camille's intention is absolutely to end the reign of terror
by the vivisectionists she targets. Her intention is to end the terrible
suffering. As such I have sympathy for her and believe she deserves the best
possible defense. Because I have sympathy for her, it does not mean that I
endorse every action she takes.
Please let me know if this helps'.
Ruth`
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February 9th, 2012
at 12:18 pm
Aron,
Ethical vegetarians and vegans have no intention of
keeping silent about the emphasis on compassion.
If you are incapable of
understanding a position based on morality and compassion, then do not ask
us to remain silent.
You have not once answered the issue posed by Steve
and me with any logic or thought, but rather with sarcasm, hostiity and
defiance. The cruel decision you so proudly flaunt, reveals a great deal
about your inability to comprehend the harm done by killing animals for your
own gratification.
Ellen Myers said,
on February 9th, 2012 at
2:08 pm
I guess what they (the extreme animal rights activists) are doing
is morally wrong but if I had to take sides, I'd side with them. I wish with
all my heart that there were some animal rights vigialantes, or whatever you
want to call them, here where I live. Animals are living beings with
feelings and they have done nothing to deserve the cruel torture and
mistreatment that's done to some of them, unlike some people do who aren't
getting it. Ordinarily I'm against hate groups but when it comes to people
who are trying to help others that are unjustly abused and mistreated,
including animals, whether it's morally right or wrong, I say God bless and
protect them.
Aron said,
on February 9th, 2012 at 2:18
pm
Alright,
Since you're obviously so high and mighty, I'll approach
your pedestal. The reason I continue to eat meat is twofold: first, I love
meat. Second: I dislike most vegetables.
You can continue to throw red
paint on fur coats and call that 'nonviolence.' But just be prepared for the
legal consequences. I don't need to prove my compassion to anonymous
Internet commenters. I know I am intensely so, and that's what matters.
We are all here for a reason. When I die, my body will be absorbed into the
soil. My corpse will be consumed by various small (and possibly larger)
critters. My nutrients are passes on to other entities.
It is the same
thing with animal consumption. The fact that I derive pleasure from the
consumption of animal flesh is an aside.
(The other reason that I haven't
given you the time that you quite frankly deserve is that I simply haven't
had much time of my own today.)
I apologize in advance for what is very
likely a rambling comment. Lacking the time to proofread for clarity and
content.
Susan said,
on February 9th, 2012 at 3:01
pm
Ruth,
You seem to spend a lot of time extolling the virtues of
India and their views towards animals. You are correct when you state that
India is working towards phasing out dissection in their colleges and
universities. However, experimentation on animals in India is a booming
business. A quick Google search of the words 'India,' 'GLP' (Good Laboratory
Practice), and 'toxicity' reveal scores of Indian companies ready, willing,
and able to perform preclinical toxicity studies in animals for a price. For
example, the Indian Institute of Toxicology offers the following services:
Acute Toxicity / LD 50 (Limit Test), Dermal Irritation, Eye Irritation,
Mucous Membrane Irritation, Inhalation, Dermal Sensitization, Repeated Dose
(Sub-Chronic)14/28/90 Days, Chronic Toxicity (180 day to 1 year),
Reproduction Toxicology, Mutagenicity, Dominant Lethal Test, etc. So much
for the belief of ahimsa.
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February 9th,
2012 at 3:56 pm
Ellen,
There is a difference between what is morally
and legally wrong. Civil disobedience to defy an unjust law is not morally
wrong.
'One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust,
and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the
conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the
highest respect for law'
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Unfortunately animal
law in this country is on the side of the vivisectors. The tolerance for
their cruelty is founded on the biblical notion of dominion, where-in man is
granted power over the animals. Therefore it would be helpful to peacefully
protest the innate cruelty of allowable slaughter by religions and religious
leaders who endorse it as a god-given right.
EarleyDaysYet said,
on February 9th,
2012 at 4:14 pm
OK, I must say I find all this 'India and the east treat
their animals better and with more reverence' crap to be complete nonsense.
Have you BEEN to any of these places? Have you seen live sheep at markets
being jammed into a car trunk/boot for transport? Have you been to Thailand,
where Buddhism prohibits violence yet starved, mangy dogs roam the streets
and are kicked out of the way if they block a pedestrian's path? Have you
been to the fish markets in Tokyo, where all the still-alive fish are
displayed in jam-packed 'aquariums' so you can pick which one will be killed
in front of you? Have you seen markets in India where the sacred cow is the
ONLY animal not beaten, pushed, shoved, carried by one leg? Have you seen
the results of protecting macaques etc in India, where they have essentially
formed street gangs that raid food carts, enter homes through windows and
destroy the contents looking for food etc?
'The East', and even Mahatma
Gandhi, do not have all the answers. I don't know what 'the' answer is, or
if one even exists, but enough with the fetishisation of India as the
Country Of Animal Love, Flowers & Rainbow-Flavoured Unicorns.
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February 9th, 2012
at 4:26 pm
Susan,
Yes, of course there are cruel individuals in India,
who will resort to harming animals, but at the very least there is a legal
foundation for moving forward. India banned the export of all its free
roaming monkeys to keep them from harm in laboratories abroad. It is against
the law to kill a dog for any reason. In dog loving USA we kill 4-5 milliion
young healthy dogs a years when the become inconvenient. In India it is
against the law to keep wild animals such as tigers, panthers, bears captive
for human entertainment. A law was passed recently which liberated all
elephants from zoos and circuses'In the USA not only is there no possibility
for releasing elephants from captivity, it is legal to beat them with a bull
hook. The reduction to zero of animals dissected is not a trivial
improvement. It is broad based and has the potential to save billions of
lives. The Indian Wilderness Preservation Act prohibits hunting. There are
never culls. In the USA every animal from the prairie dog to will boars to
geese are culled. In the USA hunting licenses are granted for a fee. Hunting
gear is a booming business. There are Christian Youth hunting groups'Priests
who hunt, There are 400 million vegetarians in India'4-5 million in the USA.
There are christians, moslems, sikhs, zorastrians, jews and indigenous
people in india who do not live by ahimsa. All in all though the influence
of ahimsa has provided a legal basis for moving forward with animal
compassion that does not exist in dominion USA.
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February 9th, 2012
at 4:39 pm
To EarleyDaysYet said,
It does not make any sense to lump
the entire far east with india. India is unique, in that it has a long
tradition of caring for animals'The first animal shelters were established
thousands of years ago by the jains, who took in injured animals and
released those who could be and allowed the others to live out their lives
in peace. While it is possible to find cruelty every where, in india, where
jainism, not buddhism has influenced the view on animals, there is better
legislation to protect them, 400 million vegetarians, and cow sanctuaries
throughout. A sharp difference between ahimsa and dominion based religions
played itself out in the UK.
A few years ago in Skanda Vale Wales, Shambo,
a beautiful young bull, was living peacefully in a Hindu sanctuary. Though
he showed no symptoms, he tested positive for bovine TB. The Welsh
government, egged on by surrounding farmers decided that Shambo must be
killed, as he was viewed as a threat to the value of their livestock. The
Hindu monks waged an intelligent and non-violent campaign to save his life.
Transport was arranged to a cow sanctuary in India, where Shambo could be
treated for TB and live out his life. During a puja (religious ceremony), to
celebrate the sanctity of ALL life, Welsh government officials broke through
the peaceful protestors and dragged Shambo off to be killed. Those
practising ahimsa made every effort to save a life. Those practising
dominion destroyed that life and violated Hindu religious rights with their
violence.
Justin said,
on February 9th, 2012 at 6:21
pm
Ruth says she does not support the violence but that she understand
it.
What does this really mean really?
Do we have to 'understand
violence' if those that perpetrate it feel they are morally right?
Or do
we only 'understand violence' if we agree with their moral views?
No,
this is not how a democratic society works.
Then again, that's exactly
the point ' Ms Marino is an anarchist without respect for our democratic
institutions.
Activists like Ruth that justify or 'understand' her
criminal behavior are effectively expressing a view about the use of
violence to resolve moral disputes in society.
EarleyDaysYet said,
on February 9th,
2012 at 6:26 pm
The risks presented by the international transfer of an
animal known to be carrying a contagious disease, are immense ' and
governments know that, which is why they don't allow it to happen.
To
protect one bull, the death of which had been mandated in order to protect
the economy & industry of Wales, the issue was escalated to a point where
that bull was now posing a potential threat to the economy& farming industry
of multiple countries. Sorry, but I see a great deal of wishful thinking in
the 'plan' to ship him to India, and religious belief can't justify the
inherent risks involved.
As I saw it, at the time, it was of course
unfortunate that an animal had to be killed against the impassioned protests
and pleas of its community' but it did have to happen.
Beverly Kurtin said,
on February 10th,
2012 at 12:09 am
I love animals; I love human beings. But when humans
might be helped by the use of animals, well, who's to judge?
Several
years ago some PETA folks who think they're protecting animals let loose a
group of minks. The group slaughtered a chicken coop, the minks, not the
people. Sometimes well-meaning people just screw up.
The problem with
that gal is that she is doing exactly what the anti-abortion people who gave
out the names and addresses, etc. of doctors who performed abortions with
the result that several of them were murdered.
I'm sorry, but a zygote or
even a fetus is not a human being. It becomes a person once it has been
born. To murder a professional person because they are helping people in
need is as criminal as that gal.
She looks a bit kooky to me, but that
could just be a bad picture of her. Her intent is to cause harm to the
scientists who are performing what she does not like. That is a criminal
act.
Sam Molloy said,
on February 10th, 2012 at
2:13 am
Threats and intimidation make all animal rights activists look
bad. The pain and suffering inflicted by 'modern' factory farms should by
now be obvious. We use repetitious testing to legitimize many harmful
products, most of which are unnecessary in the first place. Even the most
cold hearted might eventually figure out that these aspects of our
'civilization' are actually killing us, with the ingestion of massive
amounts of antibiotics and hormones, environmental pollution and absorbable
topical chemicals that 'tested OK'. Wild animals are not safe either.The
plethora of diseases they carry are easy to catch if you aren't real
careful.
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February 10th, 2012
at 3:34 am
EarleyDaysYet,
How very easy it is to say the animal had
to die. Shambo enjoyed and valued his life, as we all do each in our own
way. He was not contagious as he did not show any symptoms of TB. He was not
killed because he posed a threat to international travelers, as he could
easily have been quarantined from exposure to others on the plane. Shambo
was killed because the judeo.christian tradition fails to grasp the full
meaning of the value of each and every life.
Shambo was killed because
he posed a symbolic threat to the value of the livestock of the surrounding
farmers. Not an actual threat, but if word got out that he was not killed
the value of the flesh they were peddling would go down. Ironic indeed,
since they did not value the lives of their animals, just the profits from
their flesh.
The disregard of the semitic religious tradition for the
religious values of other traditions has a long and bloody history, ranging
from the crusades, the inquisition, forced conversions, holocausts,
intifadas, and jihads to appartheid states.
The violation of hindu
religious rights by killing a member of their community is just another
indication of the the intolerance of this religious tradition and it
disregard for the sanctity of life.
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February 10th,
2012 at 3:48 am
Justin,
I did not say I condoned or understood the
method of intimidation chosen by Camille Marino. I said I understood her
intentions to end the suffering inflicted on the animals by sadistic
vivisectors. Perhaps this is a suble distinction, but your statement
indicates you missed the implications.
She was arrested just as she was
suing UF for information on possible violations of animal protocols. Such a
revelvation would have been quite damaging. It would have threatened their
right to continue tormenting fully sentient monkeys.
I respect her
completely for her intentions. I wish she had chosen a non-violent approach.
In the long run it would have yielded better results for the animals.
Non-violence to both humans and animals is the only sure route to ending
animal abuse in its many incarnations.
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February 10th, 2012
at 4:36 am
Aron,
There is no hierarchy or 'pedestal' in the position
that all beings: human and animal deserve respect and compassion. It does
not put me above anyone. There is nothing high and mighty about protecting
harmless animals from human greed and gratification.
Compassion is
defined as follows: Deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with
the wish to relieve it.
When you say: 'The reason I continue to eat meat
is twofold: first, I love meat. Second: I dislike most vegetables.'
There
is no compasssion implied in this statement. The reasons you give revolve
around your gratification and preferences. There is no indication of an
effort to grapple with the suffering of the animals killed for your choice.
While it is true that we all die, there is a difference between the end of a
life by natural causes and the violent taking of a life, called murder, for
ones own purposes. The latter is not consistent with compassion or an
appreciation of the value of a life.
For the record, I have never thrown
red paint at fur coats. Your view of animal activists is inaccurate and
undermines the work of the majority of those who are dedicated,
compassionate and non-violent.
When asked if he was vegetarian for health
reasons, Isaac Bashevis Singer replied: 'Yes, for the health of the
chickens'. He understood compassion.
Carlton said,
on February 10th, 2012 at
9:07 am
According to this LA Weekly article, the Physicians Committee for
Responsible Medicine (PCRM) turns a blind eye to medical atrocity
experiments on AIDS and cancer patients: http://bit.ly/9CDjlI
Ruth Eisenbud said,
Carlton,
on
February 10th, 2012 at 10:00 amI am as confused about this as you are. I
would like to hear from someone at pcrm about this. I write to them about
animal related matters and they usually respond.
In the meantime,
consider that Dr Barnard has developed a dietary plan to reverse type 2
diabetes without the use of harmful drugs,
Two items on the pcrm home
page show the effort to help dogs and cats caught up in cruel experiments:
Saving Dogs from Cruel Wayne State Experiments
Dr. Barnard's Blog | Feb.
8, 2012
'PCRM and local activists have worked hard to successfully stop
the Mecosta County Animal Shelter in Michigan from selling dogs to
laboratories. It's a huge step toward stopping dogs from being sent to Wayne
State University, where they endure heart-failure experiments before being
killed'
'Bob Barker Asks University of Virginia to End Inhumane Use of
Live Cats in Labs
Research | Jan. 27, 2012
Bob Barker, longtime host
of The Price is Right and advocate for the humane treatment of animals, has
joined PCRM in asking the University of Virginia to end the use of live cats
in its pediatrics residency program'
Using peaceful, non-violent protest
they were able to end experiments at Mass General Hospital where horrific
trauma was inflicted on fully sentient, alert, live sheep to determine the
effects of equally horrific accidents on humans'
Dr Barnard has helped
many individuals with type 2 diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure
and cholesterol regain their health. The dietary work he does has also been
shown to reduce rates of certain cancers.
All in all pcrm has a very
impressive record of ethical medical treatments and compassion for animals.
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February 10th, 2012 at
10:24am
Sam, To respond to your charges and statements:.
The vast
majority of animal activists are peaceful, compassionate and non-violent.
Much less so than than those who abuse animals.
Factory farming is a
direct result of the biblical mindset that allows for the harm and slaughter
of harmless animals. Once the gears of slaughter are set into motion they
grind on, increasing in cruelty and numbers of victims. 58 million living
sentient beings are slain every year for human gratification, not nutrition,
as the healthiest among us are vegetarians and vegans. The rate of many
chronic life threatening illness is significantly lower in those who avoid
animal products.
To point out the horrors of factory farming and ignore
the reality that every life is a miracle worthy of preservation, is to
undermine the value of much needed compassion in a society rife with
violence.
The hysterical fear of 'wild animals' is a tactic used to
initiate culls. Culls generate income. Geese are among the victims of this
superstitious justification to cull them. The reality is that no one has
become ill from contact with geese. However should a goose appear on a golf
course, well then his/her life is worth much less than a good game of golf '
hence a reason to cull.
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February
10th, 2012 at 4:27 pm
Beverly,
You state:
'I love animals; I love
human beings. But when humans might be helped by the use of animals, well,
who's to judge?'
There is no love in sacrificing an animal to help a
human. There are more creative and compassionate ways to help humans.
dave said,
on February 10th, 2012 at 8:17
pm
I guess I would have been a target of this sicko, I do work with a
lab, for free even, that does experiments on rats, most of these fall into
grafting malignant langerhans cells into the rats to study pancreatic
cancer, Langerhans cells grow in two (count em' TWO!) species on the planet,
humans and rats, but I suppose sickos like this would rather see thousands
of humans die, than a few dozen rats.
oh, by the way, we just isolated a
new receptor antibody that might increase the survival of stage 4 pancreatic
cancer to 5 years! I was eating a hamburger when I heard the good news,
maybe I should be firebombed?
Sam Molloy said,
on February 11th, 2012 at
2:14 am
Ruth, I meant that eating wild animals, if you don't know what
you are doing, can make you very sick. I agree that culling populations is
usually just an excuse to hunt them for sport. There are responsible hunters
who were schooled from childhood in clean kills and eating what you kill. I
am just not one of them. There is also such a thing as farming that respects
life. I'm assuming the Amish would be a good example. Eating some meat is a
human tradition, not just a Biblical one. Factory farms, traps with jaws
(even legal smooth jaws), fenced hunting, dog running, repetitious
experiments, force feeding geese to fatten their livers, shooting terrified,
exhausted wolves from a helicopter, all those things are just wrong. But
violent acts on our part hurt our credibility.
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February 11th,
2012 at 3:56 pm
You state: Eating some meat is a human tradition, not
just a Biblical one.
You miss the point'Religion claims to elevate the
human spirit. The jain religion does not sanction the killing of animals for
human benefit, gratification, greed or need. The judeo.christian tradition,
by granting man the god-given right to harm animals for huiman need or gain
has in fact codified violence to animals'It is the first written declaration
of speciesism. In effect it endorses and legitimizes animal abuse. As such
it is responsible for the 2 billion followers under its sway who justify
meat consumption and every other type of exploitation based on this
endorsement. It is irresponsible for a religion to teach killing.
After
the bombing of the Taj Mahal hotel in Mumbai the Indians, much to their
credit. did not become insane with rage. The terrorists, save one who
committed the bombing were killed. The survivor was tried in a court of law.
This was a measured and reasoned response to a terrorist act. It is unlike
the reaction of Israel towards lesser acts of terrorism such as a bomb which
misses its mark met with untempered ferocity, including the bombing of a
school, where 600 children were killed. Of course all terrorism is a
tragedy, but to respond in kind does little to solve the problem. When we
close our hearts to the suffering of others it becomes easier to dismiss
their lives as worth less than our own.
The family of Rachel Corrie is
suing the Israeli government for the wrongful death of their daughter. She
and other demonstrators stood in front of a Palestinian home to protest, as
an Israeli soldier was about to bulldoze it into rubble. In her bright
orange jacket she was highly visible. Perhaps the soldier did not realize
she was an American citizen, as he ran over her and proceded to bulldoze the
home. When some lives, animal or human are viewed as less worthy than
others, those spiritually impoverished by these teachings are capable of
crushing a peaceful young woman to death, as if she were nothing more than a
table in a home to be demolished.
When compassion for all is codified
and legitimzed it has the positive effect of tempering violence in the human
spirit, thereby resulting in less violence to all.
Aron said,
on February 11th, 2012 at 4:18
pm
Sam,
Surprisingly, there's actually nothing inhumane about
force-feeding geese. Due to the mechanics of their esophagus, there is no
damage or distress caused to the animal from forcing grain down its gullet.
Though I'm sure Ruth will tell you otherwise. Because she's SO much more
compassionate than myself, bastard of a carnivore that I am.
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February 11th, 2012
at 4:19 pm
There is a contradiction in your statement: 'There is also
such a thing as farming that respects life.'
To respect life does not
mean that one may end a life for ones own benefit. That is called murder.
Due to the self-serving hierarchy of dominion, it is possible to dismiss the
killing of a fully sentient being such as a cow of a pig as a indication of
respect for life. if it is done properly. The taking of a human life for the
benefit of another no matter how gently it is done is still considered
murder.
Greater individuals than you or I have understood that killing a
fully sentient animal is an act of murder:
'I have since an early age
abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look
upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men.'
Leonardo da Vinci
'We manage to swallow flesh only because we do not
think of the cruel and sinful thing that we do. Cruelty' is a fundamental
sin, and admits of no arguments or nice distinctions. If only we do not
allow our heart to grow callous, it protests against cruelty, is always
clearly heard; and yet we go on perpetrating cruelties easily, merrily, all
of us ' in fact, anyone who does not join in is dubbed a crank.'
Rabindranath Tagore
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February 11th, 2012
at 4:33 pm
Dave,
Have you ever see one of those commercials for drugs
based on animal testing. The drug solves one condition such as the pain of
arthritis, but the disclaimer goes on to state, if you are experiencing
trouble breathing or the symptoms of a heart attack, discontinue use
immediately.
The point is so many of the drugs target one symptom and
can actually lead to worse outcomes than the original condition,,,such as
death.
I would think that all the clever scientists who insist on using
animals to get a drug to market as soon as possible, would do well to find
methods that do not harm defenseless creatures or humans.
You also create
a false illusion of the animal rights movement, most of which does not
resort to violence. Most are humble enough to understand man's place in
nature. They do not have the arrogance needed to 'sacrifice' an animal for
human benefit.
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February 11th, 2012
at 7:23 pm
Dave you state ; 'I suppose sickos like this would rather see
thousands of humans die, than a few dozen rats.'
You seem to have fallen
prey to the hierarchy fallacy'that all human lives, be they serial killers,
child molesters, genocidal dictators or deranged individuals who take the
lives of strangers in a shooting spree are all to be saved, while all
animals, even those who are useful, cooperative and a friend to man and
enhance our lives in so many ways may be sacrificed to save the lives of the
most wicked of humans'.
Animal sacrifice orginated from fear of the
unknown to placate a wrathful god'Animal sacrifice in the laboratory to the
god of science is as unfounded as it was thousands of years ago. The
greatest scientists, who understand and study the meaning of life and the
universe, such as albert einstein do not have to sacrifice animals to prove
their greatness. In fact Albert Einstein was a vegetarian.
Ironically
more lives could be spared the ordeal of pancreatic cancer with proper
nutition, no alcohol and a plant based diet, then by killing the millions of
rats sacrificed to human indulgence and superiority. Science has shown that
vegetarians and vegans have the best health statistics for many life
threatening illnesses, including cancer and heart disease'
Sam Molloy said,
on February 11th,
2012 at 10:31 pm
Thanks, dave. I knew a young man who died way too early
from pancreatic cancer.
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February 11th, 2012
at 11:13 pm
Dave,
It is interesting that vivisectors veiw a rat as
equal to man because both have an isles of langerhans on their pancreas. It
is this narrow view that has resulted in the failure of medicine based on
animal testing to produce effective treatments without toxic side effects.
Such a view zeros in on a similarity and ignores the big picture of the
physiology of both.
What works on a rat may or may not work on a human.
The failure is even greater as it fails to understand that both the rat and
the man seek survival and wish to continue living.
The inability to
respect the life of a humble rat indicates a willingness to harm others when
the cause is declared just ' the righteous cruelty of the bible. Rats are
clever animals with some survival skills not possessed by humans. They are
social and make good pets, but to one predisposed to harming sentient
animals for gain, they are just 'lab rats' to be maimed, mutilated, infected
with disease, tormented and killed.
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February 12th, 2012
at 6:32 am
Dave,
I do not understand why you dont use your terminology
of 'sicko', those who are willing to torture and kill animals who have
harmed no one.
Many of the monkeys used by the vivisectors at UF
languish for years, imbedded with brain implants for neuroscience
experiments, living in tiny dark, cramped cages, which amounts to solitary
confinement for no wrong done, other than not being human.
Aron said,
on February 12th, 2012 at 1:54
pm
Wow Ruth, you really are full of yourself. I don't think I've seen
anyone use so many words to state so little actual content in a long time.
I love how you think all animals are sentient, when it's fairly obvious very
few actually are. And your comparison of farming and ranching to the
Israel/Palestine crisis? Priceless.
You can spout off as much as you
like, and proclaim your 'compassion' as loudly as you wish. Just don't be
surprised when your 'holier-than-thou' attitude fails to win very many
converts to your way of thinking.
I'm sure you'll use another three
hundred words to proclaim just how wrong my lifestyle is, so I'll simply
leave you to that. Good day, ma'am.
John said,
on February 12th, 2012 at 8:26
pm
'I am not interested to know whether vivisection produces results that
are profitable to the human race or doesn't. ' The pain which it inflicts
upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity toward it, and it is to
me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further'. ' Mark
Twain
He sums it up quite nicely I think.
Louise said,
on February 12th, 2012 at
9:21 pm
I have a very low opinion of Steve Best who preaches about 'civil
disobedience' ' flowery words but it still means breaking the law; he writes
and talks about it which I believe is his bread and butter and apparently
does not practice what he preaches-because he was never arrested. His
followers are blind and don't stop to THINK that words are cheap and
participants are going to suffer the consequences. So who is the patsy. Just
who is using whom. I would like to point out that there is nothing wrong
with animal activism-simply because it's the art of being a human being to
feel compassion-and the majority of people who advocate the humane treatment
of animals do follow the law and use the proper channels to bring about
changes. This so-called 'civil disobedience' is COUNTER PRODUCTIVE, brings
no changes, in fact, makes things worse by reputation.
Susan Duke said,
on February 12th, 2012 at
9:22 pm
Human slavery was legal once upon a time as well. Was it ever
right, moral, or ethical? I have children with autism who cannot speak or
take care of themselves and are just as innocent as animals. Children with
disabilities are VERY often bullied, hit, kicked, belittled, tortured and
even die at the hands of people who start by doing this to animals first!
Animals matter and only speciesists think otherwise. Camille Marino has more
class, truth, and compassion in her little finger than any of you who side
with animal torture and murder. Property and PROFIT should not trump the
lives of living beings. I, along with Camille and our AR comrades can sleep
peacefully knowing that we are doing what is right, just, fair, moral, and
ethical which is exposing those who hide their atrocities from the public
for fear of exposure and job loss!
As Dave expressed, the monkey's at UF
as well as animals of every species, everywhere, are kept in unimaginable
conditions without pain relief until they are murdered. Camille was awarded
the veterinary records and research records at UF's dungeons which expose
the horrors done to these sentient beings. It's unbelievable to me that
people choose to ignore the atrocities being committed every day to animals.
Stand up for what is right people!! What is wrong with you??? Donal O'Leary
purchases his victims from a local animal shelter! What if he committed
those atrocities on your missing family pet? Stop the tit for tat and if you
say you love animals, MEAN IT AND FIGHT FOR THEM TO BE FREE!!!
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February 13th, 2012
at 4:20 am
Sam
You state you know a young man who died way too young
of pacreatic cancer, The point is that the research conducted on animals
would not have saved him either'It is built on a false model, not to mention
cruelty and legitimized sadism.
Five years ago there was a brilliant new
discovery for curing cancer by targeting each particular cancer according to
a persons dna. It was hailed as a miracle cure by prestigious journals'the
only problem, the data were falsified and many desperate persons seeking a
cure died as they would have without the treatment. The sham was discovere 5
years later.
Medical research is big business, built on the bodies of
animals, who may be sacrificed to create an illusion that progress is being
made.
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February 13th, 2012
at 4:44 am
Aron,
You state there is nothing inhumane about force
feeding geese.
We do not force feed humans and then kill them for their
fatted livers'because the process and slaughter of humans is inhumane.
You are also concerned that by advocating for compassion you are belittled.
The discussion is not about you or me and who is more or less compassionate,
but about the suffering endured by animals because harming and killing them
as needed by humans.
Take a moment to consider the following:
'For
there is nothing inaccessible for death.
All beings are fond of life,
hate pain, like pleasure,
shun destruction, like life, long to live. To
all life
is dear' Jain Acharanga Sutra
When animals are deprived of
the right to exist or remain free from violence for human gain, it violates
both justice and compassion.
Carlton said,
on February 13th, 2012 at
7:04 am
Re: http://bit.ly/9CDjlI
'I am as confused about this as you
are.'
I didn't say I was confused about it.
'I would like to hear
from someone at pcrm about this. I write to them about animal related
matters and they usually respond.'
I suggest you ask PCRM about this and
post their reply here. If you don't get a reply, please post that here as
well.
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February 13th, 2012
at 8:56 am
Carlton,
It seems you missed the examples of good done by
PCRM, so I assumed you were confused about their track record.
Furthermore if they choose to award someone for the good they do, it does
not mean they approve of every action of that person'They are responsible
for the good they do'and they do plenty
I suggest you check out the pcrm
website so you can see the good they do.
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February 13th, 2012
at 9:15 am
Aron,
You state: 'Wow Ruth, you really are full of
yourself'
I love how you think all animals are sentient, when it's fairly
obvious very few actually are. And your comparison of farming and ranching
to the Israel/Palestine crisis? Priceless.'
Insults to dismiss a vew
other than your own do little to support your position, that man is entitled
to harm and kill animals for their own gratification.
To repeat'this is
not about me'or you' it is about the suffering of sentient beings.
The
definition of sentience: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
To see a five sensed animal slaughter is to understand they are sentient.
They want to live.
With regard to the existence of an apartheid state
adversely affecting the palestinians, consider the root of human on human
violence. George T Angell, the first person to found an animal protection
organization in the USA, when questioned about his decision to help animals
while there is so much human suffering replied:
I am working on the root
of the problem'
When violence to animals is sanctified and legitimzed'it
is an easy step to violating the lives of humans one despises.
I would
remind you that both sides involved in the gaza conflict both have no
prohibitions on meat consumption.
D Xochtl said,
on February 13th, 2012
at 11:34 am
This is really a biased judgmental piece that misrepresents
truth. You say 'radical' and 'advocates violence' in your first line,
setting a negative tone of prejudice. You could have chosen 'progressive' or
'reformist' or 'advocates just change'. Just because she/they use free
speech to educate and inform the public on the abuse, torture and killing of
defenseless animals done at the expense of wasted tax dollars in the
millions without real public research benefit is only 'radical' in the sense
that mainstream media/public/govt refuse to acknowledge much less discuss a
gross truth that is institutionalized and systemic.
You fail to cite
that others who supports this work include scientists (see PCRM) who attest
to the wrongs from publicly funded abusive exploitative animal lab research,
as do journalists, academicians, faith leaders and just common citizens who
find the lab research work done on animals as immoral and violent. This is
where the tru violence lies.
Activists who have done nothing other than
advocate change for good and use public speech is not violent. Legalized
torture, vivisection and killing of animals for profit is immoral and
violent in numerous far-reaching ways, and when you don't acknowledge that,
you are complicit.
Activists who work and sacrifice to bring this
awareness and information to the public are selfless, caring and courageous
in their commitment to the innocent defenseless beings who are not the
property of humans to do with as they wish.
The difference is these
activists have actually hurt no one while the people/institutions they draw
attention to have harmed millions of animals and millions of taxpayers
forced to pay.
SPLC should be ashamed for not presenting factual,
objective, fair and just information on this given that as the use of the
word 'poverty' in your name is suppose to be about the 'least' among us.
Many of us people of color know about the inferior treatment of animals as
we, browns and blacks, have historically been identified as equal to animals
by a a dominant white supremacist culture and system, and you are
participating in the same by not being honest. Shame on you.
Aron said,
on February 13th, 2012 at 1:03
pm
It seems like nothing other than touting the party line would be 'fair
and objective' reporting to you folks.
I was born with incisors and
canines ffor a reason. I will continue to put them to good use.
Brennan Browne said,
on February 13th,
2012 at 2:07 pm
I agree completely with the sentiments of D Xochtl.
There was time when I considered SPLC a credible, unbiased, source ,i.e.,
'watchdog' for violent, hatemongering groups. Not anymore. That changed when
you decided to add groups which have no history of violence toward living
beings.
FYI, SPLC, you cannot commit 'violence' against inanimate
objects. Placing 'groups' such as the ALF on a terrorist list [which does
NOT exist because it is NOT an organized movement and depends SOLELY on the
actions of each individual who decides to make the personal decision for
themselves, as to whether or not to carry out property destruction or the
release/rescue of animals from death camp hellholes] is pandering to
corporatized government fascism and facilitates crushing legitimate dissent.
SPLC needs to be reminded that since 1980, when the Animal Rights
Movement began to coalesce in the U.S., not ONE LIVING SOUL has been harmed.
Not ONE!!!
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February 13th, 2012
at 3:35 pm
Aron,
Human canine teeth and incisors are vestigial and
dysfunctional for tearing flesh, unlike those of obligate carnivore, but
useful for biting into a slice of bread.
Digestion begins in the mouth
with the secretion of salvary enzymes in herbivores and man. both have
molars for grinding, unlike true carnivores. We are much closer to the
herbivore model. health statistics bear this out.
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February 13th, 2012
at 3:57 pm
Aron,
Getting back ro the adverse effects of religious
doctrine that sanctifies violence'.
Isaac Bashevis Singer understood the
connection between human and animal genocides in his statement that
'In
his thoughts, Herman spoke a eulogy for the mouse
who had shared a
portion of her life with him ' 'What do they know'all these scholars, all
these philosophers, all
the leaders of the world'about such as you? They
have
convinced themselves that man, the worst transgressor
of all the
species, is the crown of creation. All other
creatures were created
merely to provide him with food,
pelts, to be tormented, exterminated. In
relation to
them, all people are Nazis; for the animals it is an
eternal Treblinka.
'Isaac Bashevis Singer, 'The Letter Writer'
This
statement was soundly criticized by the religious establishment, as it found
human suffering unique, especially that of the holocaust. Suffering is
suffering and sentient beings experience it. The failure to recognize that
all suffering is worthy of pity and that inflicting it on any creature is to
be avoided, is a contributing factor to so many of the internecene holy wars
of the semitic religious tradition, including the holocaust.
It is a
tribute to the value of ahimsa, that the Indians did not react in kind to
the terrorist attack on the Taj Mahal Hotel.
The 5000 year long genocide
of animals legitimized by dominion as well as a bloody history of squabbling
over whose God is to be obeyed, is a testament to the failure to understand
and deliver mercy and compassion. The slaughter of 600 palestinian children
is just the latest chapter in a never ending cycle of violence, predicated
on human superiority.
Aron said,
on February 13th, 2012 at 4:19
pm
Yep, that Ahimsa thing sure is a powerful controlling presence on the
Subcontinent. It can be directly cited as the reason India does not possess
military and police forces. And certainly not nuclear weapons, no sir!
Oh, wait'
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February 14th, 2012
at 4:38 am
Aron,
Ahimsa has tempered the rage and extremes of violence
seen in other nations. To the best of my knowledge India has not invaded
iraq under false pretenses of weapons of mass destruction and in the process
killied hundreds of thousands of civilians who harmed no one. On one of the
first nights of dominion 'shock and awe' a man brought his entire family to
his home because he lived in a suburb. That night he lost all his children
and grandchildren'none of whom were terrorists. India does not send drones
into pakistan which kill entire families sleeping in their beds and then
claim it killed insurgents.
India has never seized the land of an
indigenous population to create a state for its own people. It does not
encircle that population in order to push them to them to destruction, so
that they may establish a sacred homeland for their people by grabbing land
and destroying homes, livelihood and children'
The Indians do not go into
foreign nations such as Iran to take out nuclear scientists because of
paranoia. Israel posses nuclear weapons and uses every other kind of weapon
to terrorize its neighbors, the Indians terrorize no one.
The rage and
violence of other nations is tempered by ahimsa'Fyi ' there have never been
any Jain holy wars'as what is sacred is not the land of their neighbors, but
the desire to live in peace with them. They allow for all beliefs to exist
side by side and do not seek to forcibly convert others.
India has
suffered the brunt of many terrorist attacks, it has never reacted by
killing 600 children in the name of its hegemony.
These are meaningful
differences, tempered by ahimsa.
For animals it is also much better. The
Wilderness Protection Act prohibits hunting and culls. Monkeys have been
protecting from being shipped abroad to concentration camp conditions in
laboratories such as UF. The compassion and sensibilities of high school
students is protected. They do not have to dissect animals, so that they
preserve their reverence for life. Indian children do not go on shooting
sprees in their schools. They are not fueled with the rage of dominion,
which allows for the killing of those whose lives are deemed to have less
value.
The Indians reacted with restraint to the terror attack on the
Mumbai hotel, not with insane rage. That is a meaningful difference.
If
ever mankind is to evovle to a higher lever it will begin with a foundation
of ahimsa.
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February 14th,
2012 at 9:16 am
Aron,
I am waiting'
But in the meantime, to
rephrase the premise'Ahimsa tempered the reaction to a terrorist attack,
rather than escalated it'
Rachel Corrie, who was not a terrorist, was
buldozed to death during an illegal land grab in Gaza, not India.
George said,
on February 14th, 2012 at
7:00 pm
You have to admit the people committing terror on animals are
calling the liberators terrorists is rather comical.
In now way can a
animal replicate the human anatomy it is just an excuse so people get
continue to get grants and research for finding the 'boogeyman'.
Live
healthy be healthy. Go vegan.
pradtf said,
on February 14th, 2012 at
8:15 pm
ruth,
your arguments and patience are impressive. you
obviously know your stuff and express the ideas clearly. i'm surprised to
see such puerile arguments such as do you care more for a rat or a human,
being used in what is supposed to be a platform of reasonable maturity.
i
think you make several good points about eastern philosophy which
unfortunately isn't always reflected in eastern behavior. then again, there
is much good in western religions which western peoples ignore at their
convenience.
in any case, i enjoyed your commentary and your spirit.
in friendship,
prad
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February 15th, 2012
at 4:03 am
George,
I appreciate you effort to lighten the discussion,
but would chose a different word than comical to describe the legitimized
torture of animals and the labeling of those who attempt to end the
suffering as terrorists. It is both ironic and a tragedy based on the
premise that man is superior to the animals and therefore has dominion over
them. With this status comes the god-given right to harm them for human
advantage..
Liberation of animals will come only when we are taught that
their lives have intrinsic worth, not that compassion for them is contingent
on human need.
Ending the brutal regime of dominion by acknowledging the
failure of this concept to deliver compassion would go a long way towards
ending the terrible violence done to animals, piously legitimized as
righteous when necessary.
The more compassionate view of ahimsa would
provide a solid foundation for imrpoving the lot of animals,
'All things
breathing, all things existing, all living beings whatever, whould not be
slain or treated with violence, or insulted, or tortured or drven away. This
is the pure unchanging eternal law, which the wise ones who know the world
have proclaimed'' Jain Acharanga Sutra
It is this ideal that led India to
ban the export of their free roaming, indigenous monkeys abroad, to prevent
their torment in institutions such as UF, carried out by scientists impresed
with their importance.
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February 15th, 2012
at 9:29 am
pradt,
Thank you for your kind words and understanding.
While there are those who have been taught ahimsa, but violate it
none-the-less, ahimsa still does provide a suitable foundation for
compassion.
These are the words of the semitic religious tradition that
first codified the legitimacy of animal exploitation:
'Be fruitful and
multiply and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you shall rest on every
animal of the earth, and on every bird of the air, on everything that creeps
on the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; into your hand they are
delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as
I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.' Genesis
Fear and
dread over animal kind negates the possibility for compassion based on the
intrinsic value of their lives
.
Just this morning I read that an
entire village in Rajastan was relocated to create a more hospitable
environment for tigers. It took two years to bring this move about. The
villagers had to agree and they were re-imbursed for their homes.
In the
USA tigers are bred for canned hunts in states such as Texas. A hunter
wishing to have a tiger skin trophy can pay $20,000 to shoot a tiger up
close and personal. There are Christian Youth groups that teach children to
hunt as a religious bonding experience. There are priests who claim they
hunt for the peace it brings to them. In short there is a complete lack of
understanding that animals are entitled to their lives.
I was born into
one of the semitic religions, but was met with such mockery and ridicule
when I brought up the issue of compassio for animals, that I left. I saw
first hand the results of religious teachings that do in fact sanctify
animal abuse, as needed for human benefit.
I take every opportunity to
present the religious root of animal abuse. I regularly receive replies from
activists who are grateful to learn about ahimsa, as it gives them hope not
provided by dominion.
Ruth
Leah said,
on February 15th, 2012 at
10:37 pm
This is why people who were once inspired by SPLC are no longer.
I have represented more than my fair share of radical animal rights
activists, and I'll take them over Neo-Nazis (have represented them, too),
DUIs, and driving without privileges. Undergraduates do NOT perform
research. They torture animals. This is why most universities have
prohibitions about experimenting on animals. Restraining orders are pieces
of paper that are a joke. This woman is no more dangerous than any other
person in the U.S. She is just more principled.
Travis Bickle said,
on February 16th, 2012
at 4:58 pm
The SPLC is pathetic. If the organization was truly interested
in tracking 'hate groups', it would feature the vivisectors at Wayne State
University. Unlike Marino, these perverts actually torture, terrorize and
kill other living feeling beings. The SPLC would also feature other hate
groups like The American Meat Association, The National Pork Producers
Council, etc. The SPLC = just another bunch of hypocritical humans.
Emily Danielsson said,
on February 17th,
2012 at 2:34 am
Aron,
you're just an idiot
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February 17th, 2012
at 4:42 am
Leah,
If you are a lawyer, as your comment seems to
indicate, you might be interested in reading an article about the work of
Raj Panjwani, who has successfully argued cases before the Indian supreme
court. His victories includethe banning of vivisection for all high school
students in every state of india and the release of all captive dancing
bears. The case of the bears indicates the profound difference between the
semitic religious view and ahimsa of mainstream indian religions.
All
the dancincing bears were all taken from their tormentors and released to
sanctuaries. The former owners were reimbursed and trained to earn a living
without harming an animal. The case for the bears in India was won because
the right of a human to engage in a trade so harmful to an animal was
superceded by the right of the animal to remain free from harm.
In
addition all carriage horses were released from servitude in delhi, india.
To date not one carrage horse has been removed from forced labor and cruel
conditions in the USA, despite a valiant effort by dedicated and intelligent
advocates. Instead, a franciscan monk spoke in favor of drivers continuing
to profit from the misery of the horses, which includes long working hours,
even in adverse weather, heavy loads, accidents with cars resulting in death
for the horses. They are warehoused in tiny stalls after their day of
suffering.
Decisions favoring animals are often impossible in the USA,
becuse with dominion the needs of a human tromps the right of an animal to
remain free from harm everytime.
The article explaining the benefits of
the Indian legal system, which places a greater value on an animals life
than does western animal law, is in New Zealand Lawyer:
http://www.nzlawyermagazine.co.....fault.aspx
Camille acted in the way
she thought best to end the vivisectors dominion over the creatures they
torture, mutilate, poison and kill. She is up against the mightly forces of
dominion and did refused to cooperate with this evil..
Ruth Eisenbud said,
on February 17th,
2012 at 5:05 am
Travis,
SPLC takes is cue from the judeo.christian
view of animals: they may be sacrificed to benefit man. The benefit need not
be proven, just perceived. So while animals used as predictors of
medications and treatments for humans is flawed, it creates an illusion of
effectiveness, hence a financial benefit.
The excesses of vivisectors are
legitimized by the distortion that man is elevated above the animals, and
with this view comes the right to violate their lives when necessary'
Consider the words of Wesley Smith:
'The West is founded on a
Judeo-Christian moral ethic, which holds that human welfare is central and
that humans and animals are not of equal worth. The animal rights movement
tears at the heart of that. It's a movement that is not based on
rationality; there is a very strong anti-human element.' Wesley J. Smith
This statement fails to acknowledge the evidence that man's tyranny over the
animals is in direct proportion to the violation of human rights and lives.
If you consider SPLC 'pathetic', what about the underlying belief that
man has dominion over animal-kind? What about the religious leaders who
promote this view for their own glory?
Ruth Eisenbud
appendix A
Radical Animal Rights Activist
Arrested at University of Florida
Posted in Uncategorized by Leah
Nelson on February 6, 2012
A radical animal liberation activist
who advocates violence against scientists who use animals in their research,
was arrested on Saturday during a protest at the University of Florida.
According to campus Police Chief Linda Stump, Marino now faces
extradition to Michigan, where she could be jailed on charges of violating a
protective order obtained by Donal O'Leary, a researcher at Detroit's Wayne
State University whom Marino had singled out for harassment.
Marino heads
Negotiation is Over (NIO), a Florida-based group that specializes in
harassing 'vivisectionists,' or scientists who use animals in their
research. On its website, the group publishes the names, addresses and other
personal information about its targets. 'If you spill blood, your blood
should be spilled as well,' she wrote in a 2010 message on the site. 'We
will print your information. And we'll be at your homes. We'll be at your
work. We'll be at your country clubs and golf courses. We'll see you at your
manicurist and we'll be kneeling next to you when you take that next holy
communion wafer on Sunday. If I have my way, you'll be praying to us for
mercy.'
Police in Gainesville, Fla., arrested Marino and another woman
after they presented expired driver's licenses in response to a request for
identification ' a misdemeanor in Florida. Marino will be transported to
Michigan tomorrow, Stump said.
