Log in

02 February 2006 @ 06:48 pm
I played with the idea of making this journal private, but I decided against it.
Here's what SPEAK had to say about me.

First of all, I'd like to point out that this blog is in no way officially connected with Pro-Test. All opinions expressed on here are purely my own, and for the most part are tongue-in-cheek.
Second, I'd like to make it obvious to those who don't get it that my personal life actually has nothing to do with the issues here, and it'd be nice to perhaps debate an issue rather than your libelous attempt to defame my character (I could sue, but I found it so amusing and pathetic that I won't)
Third, I'll pick apart the passage:

"his sorry-arsed spotty face": I fail to see how my appearance has anything whatsoever to do with vivisection.

"Evidently that which he has little of in the ‘gonad’ department, he makes up for with self-aggrandisement": Aaah, implying that I have small balls. Nice one, way to stick to the issues.

"rather than stoop to personal attacks": So what was the thing about my face? A compliment?

"delusional penis-obsessed narcissistic youth": I'd personally say I'm more breast obsessed, but you'd know, right? I must be gay if you say so. Also, I'd say I'm more "awesome" than narcissistic (notice, again, the tongue firmly lodged in the cheek).

"penchant for guns and pornography and a liberal inhalation of cannabis": I am simply fascinated by the workings of firearms and ballistic science. As for the pornography, I don't see how watching a little porn is bad. It doesn't actually make you go blind, you know. Regarding the cannabis, I have taken cannabis in the past, and I'm not ashamed of it.

"they will feed out of an extended hand, which in the case of Sqrrl101, one would very much rather not know where it's been!!!": Huh? Oh, right, because I'm a massive wanker. Cunning.

"This website allows users to record their masturbation activities for public browsing": Oh holy shit, I masturbate! A sixteen year old male masturbating? Well, that's just unheard of.

"who mustered a counter-demonstration of 3 against 100 SPEAK supporters protesting in Oxford": Yeah, and look who's getting the positive media support.

"clearly spends between 12 and 15 hours a day on the computer, very probably smoking wacky backy": Again, I fail to see how the amount of time I spend doing something I enjoy has anything whatsoever to do with the issues here. The same goes with the "wacky backy".

"Although he himself disputes the quote on his website which suggests that marijuana can affect the mental health of young users, his delusional self-importance - a clear sign of a disintegrating id – could well prove that theory": Joke's on you, I've been a self-important asshole since before I'd ever touched the stuff.

"a bit less wacky backy, and a lot less self-gratification, and you might – just might (if you’re lucky) reach 25 without going blind": Oh, wow, what a surprise, you got your facts wrong. That makes a change. Like I said earlier, masturbation doesn't affect eyesight in any way shape or form, and neither does cannabis.

Oh dear, look, I tore your little argument to shreds, oh deary me. If you want to argue the facts, do so, but don't tread on me. I have as much right to speak as any of you.

Yeah, pathetic attempts at libel aside, I featured on the 1pm news on ITV, and there's this article in the Guardian. I spent the day in Oxford and was filmed by ITV and for a BBC2 documentary, as well as being interviewed by The Times Saturday edition.
aliiynaliiyn on February 2nd, 2006 07:52 pm (UTC)
Nice one :)
Emmyxcupidxstuntx on February 2nd, 2006 08:05 pm (UTC)
Go Sqrrl!!
Reading the actual artical made me piss myself laughing. So pathetic!
HAHAHAHAAHAHA *falls off chair*
Us 3 did very well compared to their 100 members.
binflaggle on February 3rd, 2006 02:38 pm (UTC)
Dont! It made me close to crying!
ext_1512 on February 2nd, 2006 08:23 pm (UTC)
How do they expect people to take them seriously when they write up an article solely to insult you - poorly might I add - on their official website.
binflaggle on February 3rd, 2006 03:54 pm (UTC)
I must say, it is extremely childish.
incubai on February 2nd, 2006 08:32 pm (UTC)
They think masturbation causes blindness.... What does sex do then? Brain hemorrhages?
(Anonymous) on February 2nd, 2006 09:25 pm (UTC)
Hey laurie itz emeka. Just want 2 say i support u a 100%. U r a legend!
incubai on February 2nd, 2006 09:39 pm (UTC)
As was the style at the time.
lozziexx on February 2nd, 2006 10:02 pm (UTC)
HAHAHA That was so funny. Are "speak" also against masturbation as well? They seem to emphasize that you do it a lot. Last time I looked at any sex help website it said it was healthy.

Well as you know every time you wank god kills a kitten (and that has so much to do with animal testing).

HAHAHA I cryed a little laughing at that article.


Also: "a bit less wacky backy, and a lot less self-gratification, and you might – just might (if you’re lucky) reach 25 without going blind." HAHAHAHAHA
malkavianxmalkavianx on February 2nd, 2006 11:19 pm (UTC)
Pro-test was the talk of the school today. Damian managed to film you on the 1 o' clock news and was showing everyone and (almost) everyone supports you. (There are a few people who dont really understand and think you want to slaughter all animals)
chebbs on February 2nd, 2006 11:40 pm (UTC)
Hey Sqrrl, nice one, gotta love those animal rights guys, they sure do know their arses from their elbows!
Keep it up sir!
oxfordfemmeoxfordfemme on February 2nd, 2006 11:54 pm (UTC)
Funny that they seem to be linking blindness and masturbation seeing as there is NO scientific link between the two... oh wait, yeah, they don't agree with scientific facts and stuff, do they? Makes sense.

mzmadmikemzmadmike on February 3rd, 2006 03:41 am (UTC)
That same group holds that gerbil jamming is perfectly alright, as long as you don't share gerbils.
mrmevalmrmeval on February 3rd, 2006 03:46 am (UTC)
You rock.

I've made this same offer to your friend Mangoflush. If you get to the US and want to shoot a variety of firearms you can contact me. I and my friends own some of the firearms you are not allowed to. I have an Ishapore Enfield 2A1 in .308 which is an Indian made one but intend to get a SMLE when I can. Between us we can come up with 20 different ones. Give us some time and we should be able to scrounge up enough ammo to keep you entertained for a day.
(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - mrmeval on February 4th, 2006 03:48 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(Anonymous) on February 3rd, 2006 04:30 am (UTC)
Umm... I thought the 'blind' thing was a physical threat. Maybe I misinterpreted.
(Anonymous) on February 3rd, 2006 11:42 am (UTC)
Might be a good idea to post the names and addresses of all Oxford University funders on the Pro-Test website, so people can send them letters thanking them for their continued support of Oxford in the face of animal rights extremism.
(Anonymous) on February 3rd, 2006 11:45 am (UTC)
Re: Funders
2d3 Ltd
14 Minns Business Park,
West Way
Oxford OX2 0JB
Tel. 01865 811060
Email: 2d3@2d3.com
Amount Paid: £24,602.53

Abbott Laboratories Inc.
Abbott House
Norden Road
Berks SL6 4XE
Tel. 01628 773 355
Amount Paid: £27,342.97

Achilles Information Ltd
30 Park Gate, Milton Park,
Oxfordshire OX14 4ST
Tel. 01235 820813
Email: enquiries@achilles.com
Amount Paid: £10,403.66

Alcan International Ltd
Pechiney House
The Grove
Berks SL1 1QF
Tel. 01753 522800
Amount Paid: £16,062.70

Alcon Laboratories
Pentagon Park
Boundary Way
Hemel Hempstead
Herts HP2 7UD
Tel. 01442 341234
Email: info@alconlabs.com
Amount Paid: £35,952.96

ALSTOM Energy Systems SHG Ltd
34 Dover Street
London W1S 4NG
Tel. 020 7290 5560
Email: london.hotdesk@chq.alstom.com
Amount Paid: £59,495.26

Amersham International
Amersham Place
Little Chalfont
Bucks HP7 9NA
Tel. 01494 544600
Amount Paid: £32,036.61

Arrow Therapeutics Ltd
Britannia House,
7 Trinity Street,
London SE1
Tel. 020 70151000
Email: info@arrowt.co.uk
Amount Paid: £96,066.06

BP International
International Headquarters
1 St James's Square
London SW1Y 4PD
Tel. 020 7496 4000
Amount Paid: £21,621.95

British Deer Society
Hampshire SP6 1EF
Tel. 01425 655434
Email: h.q@bds.org.uk
Amount Paid: £12,040.00

Cambridge Antibody Technology
The Milstein Building
Granta Park
Cambs. CB1 6GH
Tel. 01223 471471
Email: info@cambridgeantibody.com & public.relations@
Amount Paid: £40,353.10

Cambridge Display Technology
Building 2020
Cambourne Business Park
Cambs. CB3 6DW
Tel. 01954 71360
Email: enquiries@cdtltd.co.uk
Amount Paid: £44,693.95

Carl Zeiss Uk
15-20 Woodfield Rd
Welwyn Garden City
Hertfordshire AL7 1JQ
Tel. 01707 871200
Email: info@zeiss.co.uk
Amount Paid: £25,229.42

Chartered Institute of Personnel And Development
151, The Broadway
London. SW19 1JQ
Tel. 020 8612 6200
Amount Paid: £43,414.31

The Clore Duffield Foundation
Studio 3
Chelsea Manor Studios
Flood St
London. SW3 5SR
Tel. 020 7351 6061
Email: info@cloreduffield.org.uk
Amount Paid: £16,181.93

Daphne Jackson Memorial Fellowship
Dept of Physics
University of Surrey
Surrey GU2 7XH
Tel. 01483 689166
Amount Paid: £11,226.03

Earthwatch Institute
Europe Office
267 Banbury Road
Oxford OX2 7HT
Tel. 01865 318838
Email: info@earthwatch.org.uk
Amount Paid: £11,474.56

Edward Jenner Institute for Vaccine
Berks RG20 7NN
Tel. 01635 577900
Email: edward.jenner@jenner.ac.uk
Amount Paid: £306,982.40

English Heritage
PO Box 569
Tel. 0870 333 1181
Email: customers@english-heritage.org.uk
Amount Paid: £80,471.87
London Office:
23 Savile Row
London W1S 2ET
Tel. 020 7973 3000

English Nature
Northminster House
Peterborough PE1 1UA
Tel. 01733 455000
Email: enquiries@english-nature.org.uk
Amount Paid: £203,926.92

Re: Funders - (Anonymous) on February 3rd, 2006 11:45 am (UTC) (Expand)
Re: Funders - (Anonymous) on February 3rd, 2006 11:46 am (UTC) (Expand)
Re: Funders - binflaggle on February 3rd, 2006 02:43 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Re: Funders - (Anonymous) on February 3rd, 2006 03:21 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Re: Funders - binflaggle on February 3rd, 2006 03:45 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Re: Funders - (Anonymous) on February 3rd, 2006 04:22 pm (UTC) (Expand)
aliiynaliiyn on February 3rd, 2006 02:03 pm (UTC)
Do we know whether SPEAK have such addresses? If they donn't it might not be the best thing to alert them to it!

Otherwise that sounds a great plan :)

(Anonymous) on February 3rd, 2006 02:26 pm (UTC)
Das Wooten
Hey man, nice going...once again proof of that hippies suck. They do!

binflaggle on February 3rd, 2006 02:42 pm (UTC)
I cannot believe anyone can be so FUCKING childish! I didn't even believe that people like that were allowed outside highly secure mental asylums! For fuck's sake! It is really disgusting! I used to actually find this funny, but now I don't. I just find it sad and a bit sick. These people are clearly mentally retarded and have no empathy except for the animals they fist-fuck 24/7...
...Aaaahhh, that made me feel better...
binflaggle on February 3rd, 2006 02:46 pm (UTC)
Oh, and also, they can go fuck themselves, because NONE of them are going to have such a beautiful, lovely, gorgeous picture as you did in the Oxford Mail the other day!
binflaggle on February 3rd, 2006 02:50 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous) on February 26th, 2006 12:45 am (UTC)
I just peed in my pants. That is too fucking funny - it made me laugh so hard that I feel sick now. I think I'm going make a poster-sized copy of the one on the left and take it with me on the next Pro-Test march.
(Anonymous) on February 3rd, 2006 03:23 pm (UTC)
Weekly protests
It would also be nice to arrange a weekly protest outside the site...maybe on a thursday between the hours of 1200 and 1700.

The people gathered could tell the builders what a good job they are doing, and generally make their support known...
(Anonymous) on February 3rd, 2006 03:52 pm (UTC)
I think I'll make a donation.... Only kidding - the small-minded fuckers!
(Anonymous) on February 3rd, 2006 03:57 pm (UTC)
Wasn't it De Niro that said "One day a real rain will come and wash all the scum off the streets"?

i think that should apply to vivisectionists and their supporters. total filth.
Re: ha - aliiyn on February 3rd, 2006 04:16 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Re: ha - mrmeval on February 4th, 2006 04:05 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Re: ha - sqrrl101 on February 3rd, 2006 06:31 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(Anonymous) on February 3rd, 2006 05:07 pm (UTC)
Ironic how many of the people who claim the 'animal rights' people are small minded have no idea of the facts behind the argument either way and are simply jumping on a different bandwagon...

In any case - glad Pro-test is taking off and seriously hope we outnumber speak etc on Feb 25!
aliiynaliiyn on February 3rd, 2006 05:20 pm (UTC)
Re: ...
I think that your first comment is true-we have to make sure that the purpose of Pro-test is to stand up to those who would use intimidation and fear and say, "please come and talk to us like normal humsn beings. If needs be disagree but don't threaten anyone who doesn't agree with you."

Calling those against vivsection names and saying, as I have seen in some forums, that can't wait to make banners with things like "Die bunny die" on it is counter-productive. All that will happen is that groups like the ALF will be really really pissed off and make extra sure to target those involved (and don't underestimate how dangerous they can be). We have to be able to stand up, defend our point of view logically and rise above the mentatlity that says "hey, lets just badger anyone who doesn't think we're right."

I'm willing to let someone try to convince me animal testing isn't helpful. If we close up and equally say "sod it they're all morons, lets laugh at them" then are we showing them any more respect than they show us?
Re: ... - (Anonymous) on February 3rd, 2006 06:13 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Re: ... - (Anonymous) on February 3rd, 2006 06:32 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Re: ... - sqrrl101 on February 3rd, 2006 06:32 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Re: ... - (Anonymous) on February 3rd, 2006 06:55 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Re: ... - aliiyn on February 4th, 2006 12:47 am (UTC) (Expand)
Re: ... - (Anonymous) on February 4th, 2006 11:54 am (UTC) (Expand)
Re: ... - (Anonymous) on February 4th, 2006 11:59 am (UTC) (Expand)
Re: ... - (Anonymous) on February 4th, 2006 12:03 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Re: ... - aliiyn on February 4th, 2006 12:41 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Re: ... - aliiyn on February 4th, 2006 12:42 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Re: ... - aliiyn on February 4th, 2006 12:51 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Re: ... - aliiyn on February 4th, 2006 12:39 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Re: ... - aliiyn on February 4th, 2006 12:36 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Re: ... - (Anonymous) on February 4th, 2006 12:59 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Re: ... - (Anonymous) on February 4th, 2006 04:33 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Re: ... - aliiyn on February 4th, 2006 07:07 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Re: ... - (Anonymous) on February 4th, 2006 06:13 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(Anonymous) on February 4th, 2006 03:43 pm (UTC)
Hmmm... Speak's article was admittedly regrettable. But Speak has proven itself more than capable of arguing on 'logical' grounds in the past and, in but a second's purview, it is excusable to suggest that its recourse to argumentum ad hominem might be because you yourself have not brought anything of substance to the table. Speak has made the mistake of responding to mud with mud. But it is not as though Speak is setting up straw men and circumventing your all-so profound arguments: for you offer no arguments, only adolescent noise. Noise that is banal, anodyne, sleep-inducing. If speak is to be criticized, it is for taking you seriously. This was the flaw of the media and speak errs in thinking that the right response was to simply turn the idiocy of the corporate press on its head: rather it should attack, without pity, with irreverence, the lapdog press itself.

The T-Test website has all the hallmarks of a fifteen minute Sunday afternoon (or late night) project - there is nothing to get one's teeth into, only a desperate, anti-intellectual appeal to 'authority' that parrots the usual buzz speak without a scintilla of self consciousness, without any credible scientific slant. You are like I was at your age - not so long ago, if you care to know - all the hubris, none of the sophistication: in a word, a know-it-all, in the derisory sense of the word. You've probably read an idiots guide to vivisection and, being a young male, now think that you are the world expert - as long as there are other people's arguments that you can pass off as your own.

This is illustrated by your claiming to "tear to shreds" Speak's ad hominem. Nice try, no cigar. Only intellectual midgets arrogate to themselves the belief that all they need do is append one or two caveats to an argument and it is refuted! Nego conseqentuim: grown ups are a little more complex when exchanging viewpoints. Your caveats do not offer any substance and certainly do not address any issue: "you have big nose!", so you say speak says, in retort: "My nose is small!. Your devastating (sic) reply hasn't really much more to it than that and I worry about the intellectual standards of my contemporaries when I see the replies elicited below that respond to your inanities as if they were gems of wisdom. You fall foul of what you accuse Speak of doing, arguing about irrelevancies, and you fall short of offering anything that could possible be construed - even when faced with a generous interloper such as myself - as a logical argument.

Your all-so-cliche interest in guns, wacky backy, etc. - how hard are you trying to live up to stereotypes of a young, reckless and braindead youth, or do you not even see yourself as playing a Goffmanian role? - is important to the extent that it does say something about you.

If you think your psychological profile is off-limits, you are sadly mistaken. Speak probing your character - and the role you are playing - is legitimate but speak might have been wise to be a little less vitriolic. You can be taken down without bile: all that's needed is mirth or even silence. To the extent that your 'personality' influences your action speak is justified in its attempting to explicate that. (And let's face it, it certainly isn't logic, or fact, or truth, because you haven't evinced any rational defence of vivisection, only half-arsed clichés, and if i dare exhibit condescension, you are at that age when the certainty that you are right is many planets ahead of your actual knowledge of any subject more pressing than short skirted girls: don't feel slurred, we were all such, and we all look back when we reach our late teens with a wry smile).

(Anonymous) on February 4th, 2006 03:44 pm (UTC)
I wouldn't recommend speak or the ALF taking you down, which it could so easily do. You'd certainly be useful for the training of novitiate commandos: a legitimated target, none of the multimillion-security machine. But far more interesting is an analysis of the mainstream press that falls hock, line and sinker for the classroom clown - almost confessed to by the clown himself, with the constant reference to tongues in cheek - and his vulgar pranks. Pravda beware. C'mon Speak! You are the experts in semiotic expropriation. This is the real story, this should be your focus! Think of the scalps! Once again we see how ridiculous and loathsome the British press is - and I know, because I am in regular correspondence with the fools, who display a shocking inability to defend themselves against informed readers.

I'm tempted to say that our clown adds weight to Munro's (1994) contention that in the age of post-citizenship counter movement battles movement. But then, can I really conflate the bluster of a handful of bored school children as anything of the sort?

If speak is to run with the characterisation of you as a sticky-fingered, spotty-faced goon, then we'll call you Kevin. And my advice to speak is: don't belittle yourself by arguing with inchoate clowns like Kevin. The lower-order philistines of our society aren't worth it. You cannot engage with the mud on your shoes.

*Our clown couldn't sue. This is just intellectually vapid classroom speak. You probably picked up the expression from a Hollywood flick. Taken to its extreme, "I could sue...but" actually supports Speak's contention that you aren't thinking for yourself, simply rehashing phrases you've picked up in everyday life, again, without the slightest self consciousness of your doing so. Countless are the popular shows where that 'threat' is heard. That would be an interesting counter-charge indeed. You haven't got any greater legal standing than, say, the fatso in the street that I laugh at. To be able to "sue for libel" a factual charge would need to be aimed at you - say, you were given a few two-penny sweets and dirty mags by Simon Festing to set up the website, etc. - rather than a qualified reply. The British libel laws are strict enough to ensure that lower-order spats, in barrooms, in internet forums, etc. - don't find their way into our hallowed courts. If you genuinely think you can sue because someone can be perceived as being nasty toward you, has a heated opinion of you, etc., then you're more of an idiot than even speak gives you credit for. If such were so, there would be one lawyer for every two drinkers in our pubs.

God, how humouring. Is this the best our opponents in the globalist-controlled press can do? If creatures this feeble are taken seriously as 'counters' to our moral cause, how bleeding desperate the evil-ones must be.

This is a postscript for any passing alfers:
then there are the epicures, who start hopefully, but find that nothing has been quite so well cooked as it ought to have been.
(no subject) - oxfordfemme on February 4th, 2006 04:31 pm (UTC) (Expand)
also. - (Anonymous) on February 5th, 2006 07:29 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - (Anonymous) on February 6th, 2006 06:46 pm (UTC) (Expand)
A well written attempt at hypocrisy - (Anonymous) on February 5th, 2006 07:20 pm (UTC) (Expand)
What a cunt - (Anonymous) on February 25th, 2006 07:21 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Animals Vs People - (Anonymous) on February 26th, 2006 01:53 am (UTC) (Expand)
(Anonymous) on February 5th, 2006 09:42 am (UTC)
They'd better damned well test that stuff on animals before they send it out to be tested on humans. My species didn't claw it's way to the top of the food chain by continued use of neanderthal logic after all.
(Anonymous) on February 6th, 2006 05:10 pm (UTC)
Well the effects on animals and humans are different.. Maybe they should test stuff out on humans... There's way too many humans populating this world.
(no subject) - (Anonymous) on February 25th, 2006 07:23 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(Anonymous) on February 5th, 2006 08:59 pm (UTC)
My father had life-saving brain surgery and cancer treatment that was only possible through animal testing. I support it 100%, because without it my Dad would have died. Animal rights protesters care more for animals than human suffering.
As an Oxford student I have to walk past these delightful people every thursday to the sound of a barrage of abuse, nevermind the fact that I'm an arts student. Also, they've threatened to burn down the English Faculty Library -the closest thing to animal products in there is the Librarian's ham sandwich at lunchtime. But what can you expect from people rivetted by a 16 year old's masturbation habits? You've got to love how they indignantly claim police brutality against children in their protests in Oxford -and yet have no problem threatening under-18's.
Laurie Pycroftsqrrl101 on February 5th, 2006 09:48 pm (UTC)
Your dad is one amongst many, many thousands of people who've been helped by animal based research, and I'm always glad to hear of people who are alive today thanks to modern medicine.
(no subject) - (Anonymous) on November 29th, 2006 02:24 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - sqrrl101 on November 29th, 2006 02:36 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - (Anonymous) on November 29th, 2006 12:47 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Joshworlds_shadow on February 6th, 2006 01:37 am (UTC)
Having not been able to help myself after reading their article, I replied with this
You people are dipshits for writing that article.
A) Being that it's his ideals and his rights to display them, you prove yourself far too narrowminded by saying what you said.
B) A formal arguement usually means not insulting the visage of the person you're arguing against.
C) You have no fucking right to call yourselves animal activists and then insult marajuana. Animal activists are hippies. Hippies smoke weed, have sex, masturbate a lot, and protest.

You little fucks all need to get your act straight. I hope each one of you activistic wanna-bes developes rectal cancer, and that each and every one of your families die in a plane crash.
Thanks for your time.

P.S. Fuck you.
(Anonymous) on February 7th, 2006 07:21 pm (UTC)
Re: Having not been able to help myself after reading their article, I replied with this
It is good to see that Pro-Test is supported by such well articulated, rational, and calm people. The types that use "fuck" in every second sentence and wish death to animal rights activists. Am I missing something?
(Anonymous) on February 7th, 2006 07:17 pm (UTC)
Dear sqrrl101,

I find it very amusing that you are bragging about getting positive media attention. OF COURSE you are getting positive media attention. You are on the side of the pharmaceutical industry and the government interests. Vivisection is an industry, which rests on making profit. It is supported by large lobby groups and, as a white paper from Home Office asserts, the government. You are fighting for the status quo and for those already in power, so it is self-evident that you will get all the positive media available. These are the same reasons why animal rights activists rarely get positive media. They are expressing criticism against the status quo, and as such are marginalised and labelled with negative terminology. They are very much aware of this, and have been for the past 3 decades. Media support is not something that they are striving to achieve. This is a matter of simple logics: criticise and you will be damned. Support those in power, and you will be glorified.

I wouldn't call that an achievement, and definately it is not something to be considered brave or morally heroic. Bravery, I am afraid, can be found from the other side.
Laurie Pycroftsqrrl101 on February 7th, 2006 07:28 pm (UTC)
Dear anonymous,

Yes, there is a msssive industry based around pharmaceuticals, and vivisection is a part of that. Yes, this industry makes a rather large amount of profit. That doesn't, however, mean the people in control of this industry are somehow evil or malign. From a purely economic point of view, it's not good for them to have people dying and, as such, want to make the best treatments possible. The fact that it is an industry, to my mind, makes the drugs and procedures produced even more likely to be reliable.
The fact that I'm supporting something already in power is largely irrelevant- I would be supporting animal based research whether or not it was politically correct or the generally accepted view. "Animal rights" activists rarely get positive media not because of their message, but mainly because of the way they convey it- often through disruptive or even violent action.
The reason which I assume many people have been calling me brave is that I'm standing up to the often violent "animal rights" activists in support not of the government (I couldn't care less what they think) but of scientific advancement and of the people being abused on a regular basis by "animal rights" activists.

Personally, I wouldn't call causing fear and destroying property brave or morally heroic.

I personally think your brave for standing up for what you beleive - (Anonymous) on June 13th, 2006 11:16 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - (Anonymous) on February 7th, 2006 10:17 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - (Anonymous) on February 7th, 2006 10:24 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Animal rights protestors are largely wack-jobs and hypocrites - (Anonymous) on February 8th, 2006 05:00 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Re: Animal rights protestors are largely wack-jobs and hypocrites - (Anonymous) on February 10th, 2006 01:33 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - (Anonymous) on November 29th, 2006 12:53 pm (UTC) (Expand)