The current dark age

[glenatron]

Today was a sad day because the repugnant necrophile bunny-fascists won and although I don't believe for a second that the people running the farm should have had to endure those conditions any longer and I'm not even sure I agree entirely with animal testing in many cases I really hate bunny-fascists. I don't know what it is about them that fills me with rage- I'm sure it's not purely that we get a bunch of them shouting through megaphones near our offices - but I think it's the fact that they are the extremist extension of all that whole "fwuffy bunnies are aw cutesy and no-one should be awowed to hurt them" element of society and also that they are a strong element of the anti-science agenda that appears to be gaining mindshare among the public in general. There are various reasons for that including the resurgence in Christian Fundamentalism (not feeling angry enough at the talibunnies? take a look at the science of the religious right) but I think the main one is that people are stupid. Stupid and badly educated. They want a simple world where scientists can't be trusted ( at heart I want a simple world where scientists can be trusted but that may be equally naive ) and there is a miracle cure for every disease that has never needed to be tested at all. They would rather trust the media scaremongering or to my-word-is-truth preaching than people who have dedicated their lives to study and evidence but cannot say they are 100 percent certain of anything because they know that is not how the world works.

There are more subtle problems- in many cases science can't be trusted while someone with a commercial agenda controls the purse strings but when it comes down to it the scientific method is the most effective tool we have ever developed and to ignore it is criminal.

If I was in charge, being a bunny-fascist would be criminal. In fact I think bunny-fascists would pretty much require capital punishment. Sanctimonious vegans could settle for lifetime imprisonment because they could easily develop into bunny-fascists and anyways there are very few kinds of people more annoying than a sanctimonious vegan.

Comments

[ciderclaus.livejournal.com]

I really agree with yuo on this one ben, whilst I amit animal testing produces results that are far from foolproof, there have probably more sucesses than failures. And christian fundamentalists will abuse what ever they can to try and get there aganeda across. In america in the bible belt states they are trying to use intelliegnt design to overide the constitution and overide supreme court decisions to put creatoinism back on the syllabus for schools. Kansas looks like it will be the first state to lose the battle.

[life-of-tom.livejournal.com]

it's the extreme blind hypocrisy of the extremists I can't stand. The way that someone opposed to vivisection or abortion will happily dig up someone's body, or post a nailbomb to a doctor or a scientist's home, knowing they have a family, and justify it because of the result they are looking to acheive. Strange, I thought they hated scientists for using the same argument. I don't have a problem with people objecting to animal testing if they think they have a well-reasoned case (someone like Peter Singer, say, who's pretty vociferous in his arguments against but resorting to barbarism to make your point is an automatic way to lose the argument. The question of whether animal experimentation is worthwhile or indeed needed should always be asked, but it should be asked honestly and without the threat of a facefull of broken glass prejudicing the debate.

I found it quite interesting that on the Today Programme this monrning, there was a debate where the two people pro and anti just ended up shouting at each other, each trying to make his point louder than the other. this was because the anti-vivisectionist didn't let his opponent finish a sentence. He was also trying to score some kind of point over the fact that only a limited number of scientists working in that field were willing to sign a statement in support of animal testing, when the reason those that didn't sign it is most likely that they don't want their door kicked in, their family harrassed, and their life threatened. Fine, have a debate, but come to the table prepared for the fact that the argument itself is what should determine the winner, adn be willing to concede to a better argument than your own. that's what liberalism is founded on, and what liberal fascists forget.

[glenatron.livejournal.com]

The trouble is that once one side has been reduced to barbarism you are on very rocky ground because no matter who won the argument one side has just left the debating room and is outside throwing bricks.

RANT!!!!!!

[bunting.livejournal.com]

I like your link to Singer there Tom, wherever the is a question of ethics, practical Mr Singer will be there.

What really narks me is if you talk to the bunny-facists they have no real logical core to their hate of experimentation. Generally if you ask them why it's bad, they will reply that animals have rights. If you ask them why they have such rights and who gives them the rights (if they were clever enough they would cite a 1986 act of parliment, which does indeed grant them rights), they general follow up with the answer because they are a living being. In that case it's generally the right point to push it a bit and ask them whether they feel yogurts or even the thrush deserve basic rights, after all, they are living too, should humanity stop eating yogurt, or treating thrush? You see the crux of the matter is that bunny-facists exist to protect the imaginary 'fluffy bunny' from being chopped up and masacared. What scares me more, is that these people are fuelled by the media and flase graphic images from research labs based in countries such as India and China. This country has the most extreme regulation of animal research, which is monitored by a government department, an act of parliment, and an agency of vets willing to dole out severe punishments (including legal ones) to those who so much as sniff at breaching any rules. On top of this, all governmental policy goes through thee RSPCA who are extremely anti-vivi, and still gets agreed on. In reality, aninmal research in this country is more stricktly regulated than peoples pets, farm yard animals, or even zoo's.

At the end of the day Scientists are dedicating their lives to answering questions and in the process making peoples lives better. They don't get a great wage, and have to work most of the waking hours, but one day in the future, when people are asked to make the choice between a 'fluffy-bunny' and their wife/husband/daughter/son they won't so much as think of the scientists that made that possible, wwho have had to deal with protesting, and living in fear of their dead wife/husband/daughter/son being dug up.

Re: RANT!!!!!!

[glenatron.livejournal.com]

The RSPCA are dick all use where pets or agricultural animals are concerned:
"Hello, RSPCA"
"Oh, hello, I've just seen a severely abused animal I wanted to report it to you."
"I see, are you Rolf Harris?"
"No, I'm obviously not."
"Do you have a documentary team with you?"
"No, I'm just a normal person."
"Oh, right, in that case we can't help at all."

[kittyfantastico.livejournal.com]

I think, Ben, the title of your post is most apropos, and perhaps even more suitably applied to this time frame than to the early middle ages (approx. 300 - 900) that it's generally applied to. For different, but related, reasons, I am intimidated by the re-awakened christian fundamentalism that has spread in North America. I have only recently (relatively) begun to actually call myself a feminist (with its political connotations), and have had to defend my ideas more than once. Apparently, you cannot be christian and a feminist - the two simply do not coincide. But I think the core of this confusion is related to the animal rights extremists (or perhaps extremists in general?) - in that there is this tendency to see things in stark contrasts, you're either right or wrong, without any shades of colour from the broad spectrum of opinion that would allow experience to form opinion. Which individual is to say what is right and what is wrong? Surely not the bible? It's been re-written, re-translated, re-interpreted so many times that one version is often a virtually new book from another. And I wouldn't suggest the Torah either (roughly the old testament), with the Chumash and Talmud, and Mishnah (divided into sedarim and masekhtot) for the same reasons. The Quaran I don't know enough about - but I know that what has happened in Judaism has occurred in Islam - you have a core text and many supplemental texts that explore and interpret the core text. This is where much of the fundamentalists are divergent in their practices from their beliefs.

In other words, I personally feel that faith and religion are two very different things, and that you can have one without the other. As well, I also think that many people often use religion (specifically) and perhaps faith (in an individual) as a convenient authority in their actions. "I threw that brick, God told me to," would get any of us thrown in the loony bin quick enough. But, "be nice to the animals of the world - because we were given stewardship over them by god" is another thing. (this is also the reason I've been given to start eating meat - god gave animals to man to be eaten - yep, still a vegetarian).
/end ramble

[glenatron.livejournal.com]

Following on from my previous link on science and education and how they relate to Conservative Christianity, sometimes Onions speak louder than words (http://theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2).

Re: RANT!!!!!!

[stu-the-elder.livejournal.com]

I think it's about time I mutated a group of bunnies to the stage where they're all Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle style evolved, and then told them that the bunny-fascists have a lettuce sandwich, and that they said the mutants can't have it. And that they think mutant rabbits are big wussy wusses.

- Crumpwright, aka 'Doktor Dioxyribonucleic' (catchy, no?)