(Dublin) Protest against Yamanouchi: Customer of Vivisection

by Mr Ed Mon May 19, 2003 11:52

Are SHAC the crowd who released all those Mink in an act of'liberation' a couple of years ago. The mink went on to kill every small animal within a twenty mile radius. Animal Rights? My arse!

by SHAC - as above Mon May 19, 2003 12:52

Oh yea I suppose you just happen to live in that exact area and know an aweful lot about conservation and 'small animals'. I guess there'a no mice, sparrows, dogs, childern or elderly people due to being wiped out by angry vengeful mink?!

I assume you haven't bothered to read the above posting, instead you'd obviously prefer to remain prejudiced and uninformed - it shows in your arguement, it's sad really.

Incidently, SHAC is an anti-vivisection group campaigning for the closure of Huntingdon Life Sciences, a vivisection lab based in the UK. Read the evidence and then make up your own mind:
http://www.shac.net/TARGETS/customers/infiltration/infiltratedtwicefrontpage.html

by Mike Mon May 19, 2003 13:15 stepbystepfarm at shaysnet dot com

By what you wrote you show that you are somewhat confused. The "animal rights"/"animal welfare" folks are concerned with what HUMANS do to other animals. Humans being repsonsible for human actions. They are NOT making any claim to.......

1) Moral judgements about how the other animals relate to each other. This simply is not a human responsibility. Humans did not create the universe in which some animals are predators, others prey, and we have no responsibility to change that.

2) Being environmentally concerned. Thus in a case like this, that the effect of a mass release of an "exotic" (mink) causes environmental disruption is not a primary concern. They are concerned with the welfare of individual animals, not entire species and not the ecosystem as a whole.

THUS -- with regard to the mink killing birds and rodents in the area of the release ---- that's what mink in the wild do, hunt birds, rodents, frogs, fish, etc. They would perhaps agree that mink do not "belong" in Britain, do not "belong" is such massive densities, but these problems are trivial in comparison to "mink do not belong in human cages".

by Outsider Tue May 20, 2003 23:59

Did you guys ever hear of Hans Ruesch, the Swiss medical historian who elevated the 'animal rights' debate to a scientific level in the 1980s with his book IMPERATRICE NUDA, first published in Rome in 1976, later in English as two volumes titled 'Slaughter of the Innocent' and 'Naked Empress', the English translation of IMPERATRICE NUDA. My complaint to all of you is that Hans Ruesch's work has never been properly evaluated and properly debated. This is the debate that really matters. How do we evaluate the legacy of Hans Ruesch?

by SHAC - as above Wed May 21, 2003 11:15

> My complaint to all of you is that Hans Ruesch's work has never been properly evaluated and properly debated.

Do you mean to say that his work hasn't properly been promoted by anti-vivisectionist? I've only read 'Slaughter of the Innocent' and, though it's great, 25 years on it's a little dated. Drug-disaters he discusses are as old as, in some cases, 50 years. Unfortunately, there's been plenty more drug-teting related deaths and, fortunately, there's been lots more books published that deal with these. Dr. Ray Greek (author of 'Specious Science') seems to have taken Ruesch's role nowdays.

Check the link below for further info

by Outsider Fri May 23, 2003 23:52

Thank you, SHAC, I'll check it out. But before I do so, I just wish to refer to a point which Hans Ruesch kept repeating ad infinitum in the 1980s:
IF EVEN ONE ANIMAL EXPERIMENT CAN BE DOMONSTRATED TO HAVE BENEFITS TO HUMAN HEALTH, THE ENTIRE ANTIVIVISECTIONIST DEBATE COLLAPSES FOR ALL TIME. Hans argued that there are NO benefits to humanity from vivisection. That is the only basis on which vivisection can be abolished, because if we admit that there has been even ONE beneficial animal experiment, we have lost the argument, because the vivisectionists can reply that if ONE experiment was good for humanity, then we must keep experimenting in case another experiment somewhere down the line might be beneficial to humanity. I was very upset recently when a local SHAC group came to the street where I live. There are some offices opposite my house which have links with vivisection. The SHAC group chanted ineffective slogans about animal torture, never addressing the scientific issue. Hans hit the nail on the head when he said we lose the argument if we accept that even one animal experiment is beneficial to humans. I've had my disagreements with Hans. I would like to see us grasp the nettle. Hans said it bravely: we lose the argument if even ONE animal experiment is considered to be scientifically valid. I'll check the sources you referred me to. But we can't get away from the principle Hans enunciated. We need to grasp this nettle.

by Outsider Sat May 24, 2003 17:56

As no one has replied yet, I'll write a little more.
Personally I think Hans Ruesch was wrong in arguing that there are no benefits to human health from vivisection. Crime pays - we all know that. Just look at the Afgan hijackers who have been released from jail in England and are in line for a million pounds compensation - they will tell you that crime pays. Crime does pay in the short term at least. It would be very surprising if vivisection did not have benefits in the same way. The newspapers are forever full of gushing reports from transplant recipients who say they have been given a new lease of life by a transplant. As beneficiaries of vivisection, these recipients of transplants are criminals who are benefiting from the crime of vivisection in the short term. They will have to face the judgment of God for having benefited from vivisection.
The point I am making is that Hans Ruesch's argument was flawed. There ARE short term benefits from vivisection, we all know that crime does pay, and vivisection is no exception.
What it comes down to is that in the final analysis, I disagree with Hans Ruesch, and I agree with SHAC. There is NO scientific basis for abolishing vivisection, because the people who claim to have got life-saving transplants can always shout us down.
On the other hand, I know vivisection is wrong, SHAC knows vivisection is wrong, and when the human race comes of age, we will all know vivisection is wrong.
Websites supporting Hans Ruesch's thesis pathetically survive, such as BAVA and SUPRESS. The sad fact is that Hans Ruesch got carried away. He believed what he wanted to believe, and he persuaded a lot of other anitvivisectionists to believe the same in the 1980s. It was never true. Crime does pay, and vivisection is no exception.
We'll abolish vivisection only when the human race grows up.