Visitor:
Practical Issues > Things To Do > Activism
Discussion: The Arrest of Camille Marino, Compassion, the Sadism of Vivisection


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.

Fair Use Notice and Disclaimer
Send questions or comments about this web site to Ann Berlin, annxtberlin@gmail.com