Animal Rights Group Targets NIH Director's Home (sciencemag.org) 222
sciencehabit writes: Late last month, hundreds of people in two Washington, D.C., suburbs received a letter in the mail claiming that one of their neighbors was tied to animal abuse at a government lab. Science has learned that the letters, sent by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), targeted U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Francis Collins and NIH researcher Stephen Suomi, revealing their home addresses and phone numbers and urging their neighbors to call and visit them. The tactic is the latest attempt by the animal rights group to shut down monkey behavioral experiments at Suomi's Poolesville, Maryland, laboratory, and critics say it crosses the line.
It shows how powerful misinformation is (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It shows how powerful misinformation is (Score:5, Informative)
And the irony is that PETA puts down dogs that could otherwise adopted because the head of Peta doesn't believe in pets.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And the irony is that PETA puts down dogs that could otherwise adopted because the head of Peta doesn't believe in pets.
Peta once "discarded" a dozen dead cats on the cars of a fast food joint I was at. Really creepy that was.
Re:It shows how powerful misinformation is (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you could extend that to "Most "first-world" humans treat some animals really badly" at least by proxy. After all, pretty much every time you eat meat that isn't specifically labeled as being raised and slaughtered humanely you are personally commissioning the horrendous treatment of the source animal in a factory-farm.
Re: It shows how powerful misinformation is (Score:3)
Actually, you could extend that to "Most "first-world" humans treat some animals really badly" at least by proxy.
Not to mention the mass slaughter of millions of animals every year by trucks hauling California vegetables cross-country.
Obligate-localvore vegans I give an ethical pass to, though.
Re: (Score:2)
I somewhat disagree - a sudden end to a good life is the most anyone can really hope for.
Very few car accidents involve sudden death, both for occupants as well as roadside fatalities. I'd personally rather be decapitated in a slaughterhouse than die slowly of internal bleeding on the side of the road.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention all the insects killed by having vehicles crash into them. They're animals too!
Re: (Score:3)
Not to mention all the insects killed by having vehicles crash into them. They're animals too!
Don't get PETA started on that too [peta.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I put them in the same bin as the nutso "pro-life" murderous thugs.
If you knew someone was committing murder on a massive scale, wouldn't you believe it is your moral imperative to put a stop to it? If that person is cutting babies apart on a daily basis, wouldn't you feel the same way?
The difference of a couple months in your mind excuses murder, in my mind, and many like me it does not.
Re: (Score:2)
You are using the word "murder" in a non-standard and non-traditional way. I am aware of no culture that treated abortions as if they were murders, including ones that made abortion illegal. I dislike people who use loaded words in made-up ways in their arguments.
Most abortions take place in the first trimester. A large majority take place before the fetus have recognizable human brain activity. Almost all abortions after the first trimester are for medical reasons, and are not optional. The Supreme
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I dispute their view that it is wrong to use animals for experiments to advance the cause of science.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, you know what else Hitler did?
Breathe air and eat food...
Obviously anyone who does those things are like Hitler too...
Re:It shows how powerful misinformation is (Score:4, Informative)
If more than one person treats an animal badly, then it is proper English to say that "people treat animals badly"
It might be "proper English," (as are many misleading statements) but it's disingenuous because "people" would usually be taken to mean humanity as a whole in that context, rather than "more than one person."
People, on the whole, or even on average, do not treat animals badly*.
*which is subjective, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The plural of person is people. There is no other way to word it.
My point - which you seem to have missed entirely - is that "people" doesn't always just mean - and isn't always only inferred to mean - "more than one person."
That you attach so much emotion and subtext to words
I'm simply talking about the way people actually use words, which is what defines English.
"The people", "humanity", "human kind" and hundreds of other ways can be used to include everyone.
Yes, they can. So can "people."
What would you have them use for the plural of person? Persons? That's no longer in common usage.
I wouldn't have them say anything. I'd suggest they say "some people," which mitigates the ambiguity.
Also see AC's reply here [slashdot.org] which sums it quite nicely as well.
Re: (Score:2)
What would you have them use for the plural of person?
It depends on how clear you want the meaning of the statement to be. You can always add further clarifying information. "Humans" in the phrase "Humans treat animals really, really badly," could be meant to refer to "All humans" or "Some humans", but I would tend to parse it as a general statement about all humans (because in the usages that I've seen the most, if the speaker meant "some, but not all", they would've said so). Regardless, it's silly to use ambiguous wording, then act surprised when someone ch
Re:It shows how powerful misinformation is (Score:4, Interesting)
Vegitarians are monsters, they kill plants! They hack them apart, and grind them into mush, then swallow them! How disgusting can you get?
Re:It shows how powerful misinformation is (Score:5, Insightful)
So you ok with assaulting people in their homes if they do something you don't like.
I am glad I live in a country where shit like this does not fly.
Re:It shows how powerful misinformation is (Score:4, Insightful)
What do you think was the point of posting his address and phone number, at the very least it was to encourage verbal assault. Posting his physical address is encouraging more then verbal assault though, it is encouraging harassment and and possible bodily harm. Seriously what other use is there for posting his physical home address? So people go over there and have a polite conversation with him? Yeah right.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt their neighbors will but then that wasn't who PETA is trying to prod into action is it? PETA knows that it has a following of extremists who think their views are more important than the majority and that breaking laws can be justified by the purity of their cause. Posting of physical addresses in that manner is meant as a threat no matter who does it. If you think that kind of action in any way advances the cause that PETA espouses then you are a fool.
Re:It shows how powerful misinformation is (Score:5, Interesting)
PETA are hypocrites because people are animals too, and they don't give a shit about how humans are treated by others, or even what they themselves do to humans.
Re:It shows how powerful misinformation is (Score:5, Insightful)
Their animal shelters also kill more animals than any other shelter. They are not for treating animals well, they are for destroying things. They love to pour oil on people's "fur" coats, without even checking if it is animal fur or manufactured fur, and without even considering that the people who wear a fur coat will just replace the coat if it is destroyed, therefore killing another animal.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with that thinking is we shouldn't fight injustices by whatever means are at our disposal if they are illegal.
It depends on the degree of injustice. It's worth noting here that no one has actually demonstrated that injustice is going on with medical research or that it matters to PETA, if it were. Further, minor injustices would not justify the law breaking.
Re:It shows how powerful misinformation is (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't a crime like jaywalking or littering. It's an activity that possibly puts people and their families at risk. Just because you feel animals have equivalent rights to people doesn't make it so. To attempt to terrorize people who are simply performing a legal job because you have some extreme view of animal rights is not acceptable. This is why PETA will never be effective. Their actions discredit their message.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're misconstruing the message there. Actually, I'm certain of it, as you state your preconceived bias openly "Since eating a hamburger or a chicken sandwich is perfectly fine, morally speaking". According to what absolute moral authority? Have you never had a pet? If I killed and ate that pet in front of you, would your only objection really be that I hurt your feelings?
Re: (Score:2)
According to what absolute moral authority?
Pick one. There's loads of 'em posting on here!
Re: (Score:2)
I'd probably have an issue with you destroying my property.
Re: (Score:2)
Since eating a hamburger or a chicken sandwich is perfectly fine, morally speaking
Why, every moral person knows that, if it is for their own enjoyment, causing pain to another being is fine. For example, what's wrong with setting cats on fire? It's pleasurable to my eyes to see them running alight, to my nose to smell their burnt fur and flesh, and to my ears to hear them screaming. Ditto for, without anesthesia, burning chicken beaks, ripping pigs testicles and ripping cattle tails, then painfully slaughtering them. It makes their corpses' taste more pleasurable to my tongue, and that a
misinformation (Score:2, Insightful)
Gee, I thought that PETA stood for "People Eating Tasty Animals". I guess I was misinformed.
Re:It shows how powerful misinformation is (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
All it takes is one mentally unstable person getting it into his or her head that it's his or her 'duty' to save the world from this evil person PETA is talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
So PETA should simply shoot those two people in the head and then burn down their houses. That's what I would do to someone who kidnapped and tortured my child. You are saying the response is valid in the case of the doctors, if I feel it is valid in the case of my own child. So encourage PETA to do some animal rights sniping and arson.
For what it's worth, I would not do that in response to your child being treated so. If you don't care enough about your own child, why should I?
Re: (Score:2)
And your justification for that claim, beyond speciesism?
Re: (Score:2)
Nature. All species prey on weaker species. If you don't want to be part of nature, please immolate yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
That does not justify a claim that people are more important than monkeys, only that people have a natural right to prey on others (technically including other humans - apes routinely engage in cannibalism).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but by that logic, as an extremely intelligent human, I am "more important" than most, and thus by the same logic torturing them for my benefit is morally acceptable.
Re: (Score:2)
I never made the claim that humans are more important than monkeys, in fact I'm arguing against it.
And yes, I confess that I have been known to mangle a sentence in an inane online discussion when distracted by real-world concerns. I'm clearly an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
You are only stating your own preconceptions, not some natural truth. Yes, IF intellectual capacity is the definition of importance THEN humans are among the most important species on the planet. But what is your justification for that definition?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe PETA is angry... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Humans are animals, too! (Score:3, Interesting)
Humans are animals, too. How is this treating these victims ethically?
Re: (Score:2)
Peta tends to forget that. However so do most people.
I think the ACLU and OSHA are the main ones but you would think someone would start PETP people for the ethical treatment of people. Or I suppose you could name it PETH if you wanted to be specific.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not so sure about the ACLU, although their funding drives are close. Pretty much anyone who has to deal with OSHA regulations [sam-hane.com] on a regular basis ends up being treated for PTSD at one time or another.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Easy (Score:5, Insightful)
All PETA members and their families should be identified.
If they should ever turn up needing medical services, they should only receive services that were not devised/tested via animal experimentation.
I expect they'd quickly be whistling a different tune.
Re:Easy (Score:5, Insightful)
All PETA members and their families should be identified.
If they should ever turn up needing medical services, they should only receive services that were not devised/tested via animal experimentation.
I expect they'd quickly be whistling a different tune.
I don't think that's entirely fair since their belief is those same medical services could have been produced without animal experimentation.
I think they're mostly wrong of course, and more than a bit loopy, but I'd rather treat them with well deserved scorn than trying to saddle them with our version of what we think they want.
Re:Easy (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think that's entirely fair since their belief is those same medical services could have been produced without animal experimentation.
Then let the PETA members volunteer to be experimented on in place of the animals.
Re:Easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that PETA’s former director of research Mary Beth Sweetland is an insulin dependant diabetic, I’ll go with a “nope” on that one.
http://www.humanewatch.org/per... [humanewatch.org]
That said, she constructed a convenient out for PETA members whose lives rely on animal-tested or derived treatments. Because she’s working for animals, it’s for the greater good. So as long as you’re a PETA member, you can benefit from animal testing and stay alive with modern medicine so you can keep fighting to make sure no one else can. Everyone else has to die though. Wouldn’t be ethical for them to receive treatments that they’re not fighting to prevent anyone else from getting.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? Just because I disapprove of something doesn't mean I won't take advantage of it. There are tax breaks I strongly disagree with, but still take when relevant. If I could create some publicity by paying additional taxes, and help get the tax law changed, sure, but in fact it would just result in me paying more taxes than other people would in my circumstances.
Re: (Score:2)
My wife's grandmother received a heart valve from a pig that helped her live another 20 years. I guess that animal model translated well enough. I guess all those research facilities just decided to waste millions of dollars using animals for testing just for the sheer joy of it? Not to make money like evil capitalists always do?
Re: (Score:2)
What if it was like the crazy outcasted sibling that went batshit and joined PETA? Why should the rest of the family be punished?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
PETA members should be denied medical treatment for anything that isn't an injury.
Won't SOMEONE think of the bacteria and viruses!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Excuse me, but I like being the good guy. This means I want to act so my actions are distinguishable from those of the bad guys. I'm not going to suggest withholding treatment for anyone based on their beliefs.
Also, I have some unpopular opinions (not all of which I reveal in public). If PETA members don't get properly treated, what's to stop "them" from extending it to people who don't have "unmutual" thoughts? I like to defend the rights of assholes, since I never know who "they" will start on once
Not news. (Score:5, Funny)
Stating a tautology is not news.
Science learning? (Score:2, Insightful)
Science has learned that the letters ...
Really, science learned something? Science is an entity now? It goes around learning things?
Re:Science learning? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but Science IS the title of a magazine. The one linked to for the article in fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Science is the title of a magazine.
Once upon a time, there existed an entire profession devoted to finding and fixing problems like that in written works. Perhaps Slashdot should start calling their employees by some title other than "editor".
Re: (Score:3)
Science Magazine has learned...
You know, some kind of indication that "Science" in this context is some kind of organization or group people versus a "method of study". Too much to ask?
Re: (Score:3)
Why? To prevent snarky cynics from embarrassing themselves with stupid rhetorical questions? Where's the fun in that?
Re: (Score:3)
No, but Science IS the title of a magazine. The one linked to for the article in fact.
It's a pity the magazine wasn't Nature. GP's head would have exploded.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but nature *does* learn things - it tends to be slow and random, with the results being stored as DNA changes rather than in a cognitive mind, but just look how it learned to make bald apes with minds sophisticated enough to debate the subtitles of communication through abstract symbols with individuals half a world away. All starting with just some single-cell organisms. (or less, but we many never know the details for sure)
Re: (Score:2)
PETA is worthless (Score:4, Interesting)
https://www.petakillsanimals.com/ [petakillsanimals.com]
PETA's "animal shelters" would do Auschwitz proud.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The "no-kills" near me just have very long waiting times. You have to wait for them to either get enough animals adopted or die of natural causes to get down to your name on the list.
Hypocrites (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Animal research does not just benefit people. It benefits many different species. Also, a lot of clinical research is done on human volunteers. Your ivory tower has blocked out an important part of this landscape.
Goose meet gander (Score:4, Informative)
PETA President's home address
Ingrid Newkirk
40 Rader St Apt 407
Norfolk, VA 23510
Re:Goose meet gander (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this really what Slashdot has become? Flamebait stories that cause commentators to start doxing people?
How is this even news for nerds, stuff that matters? It's clickbait of the worst kind.
Re: (Score:2)
Unavailable for comment (Score:2)
Mrs. Brisby unavailable for comment.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
This is brushing the lines with actual terrorism.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, PETA is trying to outsourcing harassment of government officials by misleading information and probably omitting very pertinent information. If anything happens to them, I sincerely hope the responsible folks at PETA are charged as accessories. PETA may or may not have decent points. But the crazies in their leadership negate any possible positives.
The E in PETA should be I, for idiot. (Score:4, Interesting)
First of all, this is harassment.
Second, all of them are ignorant idiots. Anyone who wants to discuss this, let me know, and I'll post a link to the official NIH book on the ethical design of experiments, including both human and animal guidelines.
Third... have *any* PETA members *ever* volunteered themselves to replace animals in medical trials, bearing in mind that if they don't work, the side effects could be dangerous?
mark
Re: (Score:2)
Third... have *any* PETA members *ever* volunteered themselves to replace animals in medical trials, bearing in mind that if they don't work, the side effects could be dangerous?
Now there's an idea...
I'd give a neighborly visit.... (Score:3)
....and offer my support and ask if he needed anything. I'd also stand watch on his porch for a few hours a week to chase off loons if necessary.
Redundant (Score:2)
Today it was announced that the NIH has decided to retire all of their research chimps:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/19/... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Most studies that use non-human primates don't use chimps".
That's a good point, that's for bringing that up.
Re: (Score:2)
Medical research (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You probably owe your existence to "animal torture".
Re: (Score:2)
So doxing is completely unethical but torturing animals is OK?
Actually, the only logical inconsistency would be saying that either both doxing and animal experimentation are ethical or that both are unethical.
Doxing is unethical because it is an single person or small group anonymously inciting a larger group to retaliatory action against an individual. Did the individual deserve it? It's possible, but not important because the larger issue is that there is no oversight or consequence to those who incite action if they are wrong. If doxing is ethical, then the indi
Re: (Score:2)
Because writing a letter (just a letter, no anthrax, no bombs) and mailing it to somone isn’t terrorism.
Kind of sad to see a word’s meaning so dilluted that blowing people up and sending a piece of paper with words on it through the mail are the same thing now.
Re:Unbelievable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)