An animal rights zealot faces her comeuppance

I was going to write about that article about massage therapy and the gene expression changes it causes, but when I went to look up the actual paper and found out, to my great disappointment, that our institution still doesn’t have a subscription to the journal in which it was published. So, while I’m waiting for a friend to send me a copy, I can’t help but do a quick and uncharacteristically short posts (for me) discussing a tidbits of information that I found quite heartening. Unfortunately, it involves a person every bit as vile as the antivaccine activists who so hate vaccines that they’re willing to make excuses for the death of a baby that involve claiming that the shaken baby syndrome doesn’t exist and trying to exonerate baby killers by claiming that shaken baby syndrome is due to vaccines.

I’m referring to a woman named Camille Marino, a woman who is every bit as despicable–more so, even–than the most die-hard antivaccinationist pushing the idea that vaccines can replicate the triad of findings in shaken baby syndrome. Remember Camille Marino? She’s the animal rights “activist” in Florida responsible for a website and blog known as Negotiation Is Over, which can best be described as pure crazy on megadoses of steroids. With her spiritual soulmate Steven Best, Marino has created a paean to self-righteously overwrought pontificating sprinkled with the fetishization of violence. To her, threats against children are not considered beyond the pale, nor is justifying it by saying things like:

If daddy makes a living bathing in blood, you have to expect some of it to drip off onto junior.

And:

If you spill blood, your blood should be spilled as well. [W]e’re no longer playing games. 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.

Last year, Marino was seen targeting undergraduate students as the “soft underbelly of the vivisectionist movement.” Specifically, she and her minion Ghazal Tajalli targeted a bright, enthusiastic, budding young scientist named Alena Rodriguez with a campaign of harassment that so frightened this poor young woman that she ultimately “recanted” her previous support for animal research. Her statement, as I said at the time, reminded me of a Soviet-style “confession” in which a straying comrade must confess her crimes before being offered a chance at “absolution.”

Most recently, Marino started harassing a scientist at Wayne State University named Donal O’Leary, leveling the same nonsensical complaints of “vivisection” against him that she levels against every scientist involved in animal research and doing everything she promises to do against any whom she considers a “vivisector” except for actually spilling blood, although some of her dimmer and more vile fans engaged in snuff fantasies:

But the real fun begins when we rip your teeth out one by one with pliers and pound each one into your skull, via your ear canals, with a hammer and chisel.

We will cut off each ear with a scissors so nothing gets in the way of our fierce pneumatic pounding and the tunnels we are going to carve into your puny, sick brain from both sides of your bastard bald head.

We will hang your torso on steel hooks and rip your skin off in 3 inch wide sheets which we will wrap around your neck and light on fire as we toast some vegan marshmallows and light Cuban cigars to celebrate our special time with you.

Before your first pathetic life is over, as you gurgle with blood-soaked lungs and shiver with death rattles, we will kick your raw, red, bloody stump of a torso, stripped of all your hideous reptilian skin, down ten city blocks to the crossroads of starving dogs and let them devour what little is left of you, pieces of venal flesh flying into the air, until nothing of your evil, greedy, heinous, ugly, sick, sadistic, puke-inducing, utterly worthless, soulless, fuckshit body is left.

And that is only payback for Queenie, one of the beautiful, innocent souls you murdered gratuitously and unconscionably, just as your demented mentors, more sleazy white-coat whores of Big Pharma, trained you to do at the Frankenstein Academy and the Institute of Dr. Moreau.

That’s only a small sampling, to which Marino herself happily and jauntily replied:

Is there any chance I can persuade you to videotape your proposed activism so that we might upload it to NIO for the entire community to enjoy?

I just finished sending off an email to this motherfucker wishing him a slow painful death.

I would be elated to actually watch it come to pass!

Meanwhile, NIO featured posts threatening to make Dr. O’Leary “feel the fear.”

In response to the harassment of Dr. O’Leary, Wayne State actually did something ballsy. First, it banned Marino from its campus with a most amazing letter. You really should read the actual letter itself (here’s page 2). I found it immensely gratifying to read and was glad that Dr. O’Leary’s university actually took a stand. Then, WSU got a court order instructing Marino to take down all the personal information about Dr. O’Leary that she had posted. Not surprisingly, Marino refused.

And over the weekend she was arrested in Florida when she and another woman presented expired drivers’ licenses in response to a request for identification by police officers at an animal rights protest they were attending. Proceedings are under way to extradite her to Michigan. Camille confirmed stories of her arrest on her own blog.

I’m have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, it is clear that Camille Marino is a sociopath who uses and abuses the Internet to threaten, stalk, intimidate, and harass scientists whom she views as being “vivisectionists.” She issues threats and induces her feeble-minded proxies to stalk, threaten, and harass, providing them information about where scientists live, where they work, and who their children are. It is very clear what her intention is, and that’s to do anything and everything she can to frighten and intimidate scientists. On the other hand, as much as I despise the woman, it’s a little concerning how she was arrested, basically for nothing more than having an expired drivers’ license, and how she’s been held. Still, she’s been openly contemptuous not just of science and scientists, but of the law. Now she’s reaping what she herself has sown, having not just disobeyed a lawful court order but having done so openly and defiantly. Whatever quibbles I might have about how she’s been brought to justice or the conflict between the right to free speech versus where limits should be drawn to prevent harassment, threats, and stalking, I have a hard time feeling sorry for her.

Comments

  1. #1 Composer99
    February 10, 2012

    Wow mainly comments on climate science threads, where Wow usually argues with contrarians and deniers (although Wow is none too picky with the categorizations).

    So it’s a bit surprising to see Wow commenting on (a) another topic thread and (b) taking up the mantle of science denialism by defending Marino.

    For anyone conjecturing: definitely not a sock-puppet of anyone else.

  2. #2 JayK
    February 10, 2012

    @Composer99: Animal rights people forgo all rights to civility, maturity and intelligence the minute they get on their soapbox about animal rights. Many of us on this thread can detail the handling care of animals in research, but people like Wow can’t even read it, they go into a tunnel type of vision that limits their capability to understand. It is a fascinating psychological condition, possibly associated with disassociation and possibly even a compulsion. I haven’t found any research on this type of condition, but I’m seriously looking at making it my thesis.

  3. #3 lilady
    February 10, 2012

    Well, just speaking out about humane treatment of pets and research animals and supporting these causes, do not constitute violence. It is the crazies that advocate violence against university students and teachers and that attract unbalanced violent people to do their bidding, that are culpable. They provide the ammunition, load the gun and provide the target for criminals to commit heinous acts.

    Marino will finally meet up with the criminal justice system and I am delighted.

  4. #4 Mephistopheles O'Brien
    February 10, 2012

    I can buy into the view that the term “terrorist” can be thrown around a little too loosely. It does not make the death/torture threats referenced above less heinous.

  5. #5 Sean O'Doherty
    February 10, 2012

    What I’d like to know is why Wow is defending those who promote and carry out violence directed at scientists.

    Scream and stamp your feet all you want, you’re still justifying their terrorism.

  6. #6 flip
    February 10, 2012

    Wow seems to be annoyed more at the from-a-distance diagnosis of ‘crazy’. Apparently one can only judge another person after getting to know them. And doesn’t see the logical problem in that this would have to extend to 9/11 and other such events.

    According to Wow, terrorism is ok when the other people are guilty and no other peaceful option has worked. Never mind that they haven’t been found guilty by any legal measure (insert conspiracy here), if no one else is willing to take action, why, violent acts are a reasonable measure to make.

    Sigh… WTF is wrong with people that they think that kind of logic is ok…

  7. #7 mediajackal
    February 10, 2012

    Who the hell is Queenie?

  8. #8 Mr. Kelly M Bray
    February 11, 2012

    Off topic. What is the map with the red dots under the comments box?

  9. #9 Chris
    February 11, 2012

    The folks who are looking at this website. the red dots are hits, and the ones with flashing concentric circles are those who are at the site.

    It is an interesting way to see who is awake and online.

  10. #10 Narad
    February 11, 2012

    Who the hell is Queenie?

    The main subject of the PCRM Department of Agriculture petition.

  11. #11 Chris
    February 11, 2012

    mediajackal, one way to find out is to learn to use some of Google’s advanced settings. The one you wish to learn about is the “site=” command. Just go to Google, put in the word “Queenie” followed by site=… and the website that Orac was quoting.

  12. #12 Anj
    February 11, 2012

    @173 and @200

    She’s actually worse than the average hoarder. They usually acquire animals in fairly benign ways – strays, pets than need to be rehomed, fertile pets that reproduce. They usually are functional and competent in caring for the pets at the outset until they are overwhelmed by the number of pets or a life crisis which decreases the amount of time or money they have.

    Most hoarders don’t have kleptomania. Most hoarders know what proper care for their pets should be, and claim to provide it. (Even if the evidence contradicts their claims.)

    Excuse my Fristing, but your roommate seems to be more of an abuser than a hoarder. Hoarding tends to be about attachment and feeling that their pets NEED them. Abuse is about control.

    IANAP disclaimer (I am not a professional.)

  13. #13 Melissa G
    February 11, 2012

    @ #212 Anj–

    True, the average hoarder doesn’t STEAL another person’s pet and then lie about it. Unless she had legitimate reason to think the neighbor was abusing the dog she stole, the roommate’s behavior sounds seriously disturbed. (See, Wow, it is these behaviors, like JR’s roommate’s stealing pets, like Merino’s inciting people to violence against researchers over the internet, that are legitimately called out as being over the line.)

    You’re quite right that most hoarders don’t have kleptomania. But many do have a streak of narcissism that blinds them to the needs of other living creatures. I don’t like stigmatizing mental illness. Some mental illnesses, though, if persistently untreated, can have far-reaching consequences for the suffering of others. Animal hoarding is one of these (and, again, so is inciting people to violence against researchers).

  14. #14 Krebiozen
    February 11, 2012

    I worked at one UK establishment where lots of work was done on animals. I used to test blood samples from pigs and dogs that had been given kidney and liver transplants to perfect surgical techniques and also the use of new immunosuppressive drugs, both of which led to successful use in humans. Colleagues in the lab next door used lots of mice and rats. There was no security, and we never had any problems with animal rights activists, though another establishment a few miles away was raided by them more than once.

    A few years later I worked at a different UK establishment which did not do animal experiments and never had, as far as I know. We had to have strict security in place, and were advised to check our vehicles carefully whenever we left work, because of threats from animal rights activists. I never understood that. Lousy intelligence (in both senses of the word) was to blame I suspect.

  15. #15 Phoenix Woman
    February 11, 2012

    Alafair, Wow, et al: It’s precisely BECAUSE of human ravaging of the landscape that the white-tailed deer population is the highest it’s ever been.

    Because there are so many deer, the understory of forests is a veritable moonscape in places where there aren’t enough hunters or wolves to keep them in check:

    http://www.citypages.com/2004-11-10/news/bambi-must-die/

  16. #16 Julia
    February 11, 2012

    “Molars don’t happen on cats or dogs. You know, natural predators. They happen to ruminants, though.” What? Having cleaned pet dog teeth for 20 years, I can tell you that dogs have molars and humans have canines [small but real–ever watch the chimpanzee hunting other monkeys? They have longer canines and the whole affair is brutal]. There are so many other animal-related inaccuracies in the AR posts here it is sad; because those who truly love want to know everything possible about their love-objects.

  17. #17 Denice Walter
    February 11, 2012

    *check our vehicles* wow, Krebiozen!

    Unlike most people I am actually a witness to the long term emotional effects of terrorism-i.e. a bombing. I am very good friends with a person- actually a family – who lost someone to a bombing *very* long ago. They never got over it: I know horrible details about identification of body parts, anniversary month rituals, waking nightmares, repercussions in everyday life, thinking about what the young man would be like now *if he had lived*… I could go on. They live with the bombing’s effect – it enters their lives unexpectedly like a cold draft in an otherwise warm room- the oddest seemingly un-related incidents may conjure memories for them. The victim’s surviving children are now adults with children of their own- each of whom has some variant of the victim’s name as a first or second name.

    Any person who threatens or encourages violence- especially bombings- wages psychological terror: people will live in fear, the horror may actually take lives or cripple people and the living survivors carry their suffering to their own graves.

  18. #18 Militant Agnostic
    February 12, 2012

    Wowser – the Prince Charles comment refers to you showing up here and objecting to this enemy of science and reason being referred to as a woo.

    Wowser’s argument appears to be that if scientists weren’t abusing animals, AR terrorism wouldn’t exist. Since AR terrorists exist scientists must be doing terrible to animals in labs. The argument doesn’t condone the terrorism, but it does assume the targeted group must be guilty of something.

    The temptation to Godwin this argument is too great to resist. This is like arguing that since extreme antisemitism exists the Jews must be really doing terrible things. The argument ignores the possibility that matzos are not made from the blood of Christian children and ignores the possibility that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a forgery.

  19. #19 herr doktor bimler
    February 12, 2012

    Julia: I can tell you that dogs have molars

    [Checks cats] Hmmm, four molars in total (one each side of each mandible); eight pre-molars. Apparently when Wow assured us in comment #96 that “Molars don’t happen on cats or dogs”, truth was not a high priority.

    Perhaps Wow was following the non-empirical intellectual tradition, as described by Bertrand Russell:

    Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives’ mouths.

  20. #20 Krebiozen
    February 12, 2012

    Denice,

    Any person who threatens or encourages violence- especially bombings- wages psychological terror: people will live in fear, the horror may actually take lives or cripple people and the living survivors carry their suffering to their own graves.

    I agree, I don’t think most people realize how many people are profoundly affected by such violence and even just threats of violence.

    In case anyone thinks these were empty threats, the warnings I was given were prompted by two bombs attached to the cars of a vet and a professor of physiology (the latter bomb badly injured a 13 month old infant). I Googled “animal rights bombs” and was surprised at just how many attacks there have been in the UK, where I worked, and elsewhere.

  21. #21 Anj
    February 12, 2012

    Lol at the idea that dogs don’t have molars.

    My late dog had perfect dentition. The tiny spade shaped teeth between the imposing canines, the carnassials behind, the premolars and then the huge, bone crushing molars. They all have very specific and separate functions.

  22. #22 LW
    February 12, 2012

    Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives’ mouths.

    I’ve often thought, when reading this quote, that given the deplorable track record of pre-modern dentistry, if he *had* looked in their mouths, it’s entirely possible that he would have found that they *did* have fewer teeth than he did.

  23. #23 Bronze Dog
    February 12, 2012

    Like many here, I prefer to take death threats seriously. There’s no shortage of nutcases capable of carrying them out. One thing I think we need to do as a culture is put more pressure on the people who make threats, serious or not. The serious threats are easily missed when there are a lot of people “just joking.”

  24. #24 Peebs
    February 12, 2012

    WoW.
    He’s gone.

  25. #25 alison
    February 12, 2012

    Herr doktor: [Checks cats] – I am surprised you have any fingers left to type with!

  26. #26 Wow
    February 13, 2012

    Nope, you haven’t listened to a single word, you’ve been elbows-deep in your own denial.

  27. #27 Lawrence
    February 13, 2012

    @Wow – denial of what, exactly?

    I think we’ve made some very reasoned responses of why we feel that way we do about this individual’s behavior.

  28. #28 Science Mom
    February 13, 2012

    Nope, you haven’t listened to a single word, you’ve been elbows-deep in your own denial.

    That’s not denial, it’s simply disagreement with you and your defence of the indefensible.

  29. #29 Wow
    February 13, 2012

    “- denial of what, exactly?”

    That there is anything possibly wrong with your ideological stance is identical in its unsupported nature to that of creationists and that very many of your arguments are exactly those taken by the religious.

    That there is anything possibly wrong with animal testing and that maybe you’re just looking at the “Shock and Awe” stage and pretending that that’s all there is to it. Demanding that they use diplomacy first when you have absolutely no idea whether it was or not.

    In short, you’re as dogmatic and incapable of cogent argument as any creotard.

    But rather than try and improve your argument to prove me wrong on that, you prefer to double-down on teh stoopid.

  30. #30 Shay
    February 13, 2012

    So, anyone who disagrees with Wow is, in Wow’s opinion, in denial.

  31. #31 Lawrence
    February 13, 2012

    Here’s where wow’s argument falls apart (not that it didn’t long ago, but oh well) – my feelings could quite well be that animal testing be extremely limited, extremely well supervised, and have the ultimate goal to render such testing both unnecessary and obsolete.

    And even if that was the case, I would still disagree with the extreme tactics of Ms. Marino because she has crossed a line into an area that civil society should not, will not, and can not tolerate.

    Again, regardless of the policy a person is either supporting or protesting against, violence or the advocation of violence is not the answer.

  32. #32 JGC
    February 13, 2012

    Wow, let’s look first at

    Demanding that they use diplomacy first when you have absolutely no idea whether it was or not.

    By “use diplomacy first” you’re tacitly arguing that there is a point when they’d be justified moving beyond diplomacy and they should not be condemned or held accountable if they move on to embrace ‘non-diplomatic’ means instead–in Camille’s case the harassing of undergrads, threatening violence against researchers and their immediate families, posting researchers personal information online, if not to abet physical assault then at the very least to demonstrate they and their family are vulnerable to potential violence if they don’t abandon their research models.

    Is that your position? Do you beleive that failing to achieve the goal of eliminating the use of animal models by diplomatic means justifies escalating to harassment, threats and/or real acts of violence?

    It isn’t that Camille Marino should have ‘used diplomacy first’: it’s that she should only use such means, and never have moved beyond them to the tactics she currently embraces.

  33. #33 Anton P. Nym
    February 13, 2012

    So, if I understand wow correctly, I’m in denial because I oppose advocating the public mutilation of those whose actions I oppose?

    (Not that I haven’t mused on my blog about the social and political benefits of turning the RNC floor into a giant Moulinex while viewing some of the primary coverage… with the clear caution that the material was satirical, note.)

    — Steve

  34. #34 Science Mom
    February 13, 2012

    That there is anything possibly wrong with your ideological stance is identical in its unsupported nature to that of creationists and that very many of your arguments are exactly those taken by the religious.

    This is a massive strawman. We are discussing the abhorrent behaviour of an animal-rights activist terrorist and her subsequent arrest, not every nuance of animal models in scientific/medical testing.

    That there is anything possibly wrong with animal testing and that maybe you’re just looking at the “Shock and Awe” stage and pretending that that’s all there is to it. Demanding that they use diplomacy first when you have absolutely no idea whether it was or not.

    You’re off the rails; again, blogpost not about animal testing per se but Camille Marino’s vile and despicable methods along with her arrest for those methods. Again with the “you don’t know her” argument; even if she did employ diplomacy first, it never will justify her current methods or are you still pretending you’re not defending her?

    In short, you’re as dogmatic and incapable of cogent argument as any creotard.

    But rather than try and improve your argument to prove me wrong on that, you prefer to double-down on teh stoopid.

    Finally did a bit of introspection did you? Regardless of one’s stance on animal testing, Marino is wrong wrong wrong. You don’t accomplish anything remotely positive this way.

  35. #35 Mike Crichton
    February 14, 2012

    Wow: You never did respond to the point about the molars. Are you conceding defeat?

  36. #36 Glaxxon PharmaCOM Orbital
    February 14, 2012

    MESSAGE BEGINS————-

    Minion Mom,

    Intellectual Divot. Genius, pure genius. In negotiating with the Kthraaxx, a pithy slur, well delivered will engender respect. I shall use it on Ambassador Psh*thbt* at our next poker night gathering. Genius.

    Carry on with your sad little chew toy.

    Lord Draconis Zeneca VHi7L

    Foreward Mavoon of the Great Fleet, Pharmaca Magna of Terra, President, LETM

    Glaxxon Cutter “Victorious Claw of Righteousness”
    (coordinates undisclosed)

    0010011111010001010101011101010

    ———————–MESSAGE ENDS

  37. #37 Science Mom
    February 14, 2012

    Why thank you my Lord Draconis; a right high honour coming from you. Enjoy poker night but the Ambassador cheats, damn eyed-tentacles.

  38. #38 Wow
    February 16, 2012

    “You never did respond to the point about the molars.”

    You never did respond to the point about your adherence to xtian fundie methods of “argument”. Are you conceding the point?

    Your dog doesn’t have chisel teeth. We do.

  39. #40 Science Mom
    February 16, 2012

    Wow @ 96 said:

    Molars don’t happen on cats or dogs. You know, natural predators. They happen to ruminants, though.

    Molars aren’t canines. I don’t think you’re in a position to critique anyone’s argument when you come out with gems like this. And instead of admitting your mistake, try stupid distraction.

  40. #41 Lawrence
    February 16, 2012

    @Wow – after a week, this is the best you can come up with.

    How about answering the question as to why Animal Rights protesters should receive special dispensation to condone, encourage, and partake in acts of violence to support their cause?

    Why wouldn’t this be an acceptable for any group that advocates any position? Both pro & anti-abortionists, conservatives & liberals, etc, etc, etc?

    Regardless of your feelings towards a particular position, we, as a society, have made the determination that violence is not the answer or an acceptable means to push a position, agenda or policy.

    So, kindly, in regards for the topic we are actually discussing here, lay out exactly why Marino’s actions are acceptable behavior?

  41. #42 JGC
    February 16, 2012

    Wow, can I get a response to the question I asked a couple of days ago, after you accused opponents of “Demanding that [animal rights activists] use diplomacy first when you have absolutely no idea whether it was or not.”

    By my reading this passage presumes that if activists at some point tried using diplomacy (i.e., rational argument) but failed to acheive their goal of eradicating the use of animal models, they are then justified in moving beyond diplomacy, cannot be condemned and should not be held accountable for mooving on to non-diplomatic means including the organized harassment of undergrad students, threatening violence against researchers and their immediate families, posting said researchers personal information online to at the very least to demonstrate they and their family’s vulnerability to potential violence if not also to abet actual physical assault should the researchers continue to employ animal models, etc.

    Is this really your position? A simple yes or no answer would be appreciated.

    And if your answer is “No”, if you agree that threats of violence have no place in the debate re: animal rights, how can you possibly continue to defend Camille Marino?

  42. #43 Mike Crichton
    February 16, 2012

    wow: Your dog doesn’t have chisel teeth. We do.

    As do pigs. Are you going to deny that pigs are omnivores, rather than the pure herbivores that you would prefer humans to be?

  43. #44 Calli Arcale
    February 16, 2012

    On the subject of chisel teeth, I presume we’re talking about incisors. Not only do pigs have them, but so do dogs. In fact, they’re right up front, in the same place you’ll find them on humans. They serve the same purpose as they do on humans, horses, and anything else with incisors — nipping off food and other things. (Dogs, like humans, will use their teeth not just for eating but also as tools. They have more excuse than humans do, of course.) Dog molars serve the same function that human molars do — crushing and grinding. A wild dog with a largely carnivorous diet finds them very useful for crushing bone — molars are definitely not peculiar to vegetarian species. This may relate to why molars are not found in a puppy’s mouth; they emerge with the second set of teeth. Wild puppies eat pre-chewed (and partially pre-digested) food regurgitated by adult pack members; they do not yet require molars, and may lack the jaw strength required to make effective use of them anyway.

    One of the bigger differences is the amount of space between teeth. Human mouths are pretty crowded compared to dog mouths. (Well, long-faced dogs, anyway. Snub-nosed breeds may have crowding issues.) This is why dogs are less likely to get cavities.

    Now, although molars are useful to carnivorous species, not all carnivores possess them. Cats do not. They have only the carnassials (a type of blade-like premolar also found in dogs). More important, though, is probably the jaw. Dogs and cats are not well built for grinding on their back teeth. Humans can, because our jaws have a significant range of side-to-side motion rather than being locked into an up-and-down path. This is crucial for grinding; go watch a cow chewing her cud for comparison. Length of the gut is also important. Dogs have longer guts than cats, and can process some plant matter. Humans have longer guts still, making us well suited to a range of foods. But our guts are not anywhere near as long as those of obligate herbivores. Gorillas, the only obligate herbivores among the great apes, are famous for their beer-gut appearance; this is an adaptation to an herbivorous lifestyle. Humans can live an herbivorous lifestyle, but only with technological assistance. I’m not talking about B12 supplements here, though those are nevertheless crucial. I’m talking about much more basic stuff — cooking tough plant matter to soften it, chopping it finely to break up fibers, grinding flour out of grain or various other plant materials, pickling, freeze-drying (practiced since ancient times in the Andes), soaking in water or various chemicals, fermentation, etc. Our brains opened up huge new culinary horizons for us. 😉

  44. #45 JGC
    February 16, 2012

    wow @ 238

    Your dog doesn’t have chisel teeth. We do.

    Not sure what kind of teeth you’re ferring to as ‘chisel teeth, but humans possess four kinds of teeth: canines, incisors, premolars and molars. Dogs also possess canines, incisors, premolars and molars, as do cats, for that matter.

    So if we possess something called ‘chisel teeth’ dogs and cats assuredly do as well. .

  45. #46 Larry Silverstein
    February 16, 2012

    WHAT KIND OF ANIMAL IS THIS?

    Dr. Martin Haskell giving a presentation at the 16th Annual Meeting of the National Abortion Federation Conference in 1992 in San Diego. It was a gathering of abortionists — men and women who make their living by killing babies. Haskell was describing to his audience how to do a partial-birth abortion. Listen to his words about how this procedure takes place:
    “The surgeon then introduces large grasping forceps … through the vaginal and cervical canal … He moves the tip of the instrument carefully towards the fetal lower extremities — and pulls the extremity into the vagina …The surgeon then uses his fingers to deliver the opposite lower extremity, then the torso, the shoulders, and the upper extremities. The skull lodges in the internal os. The fetus is oriented … spine up … The surgeon then takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. … the surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull–spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening. The surgeon–surgeon then introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents.”
    Haskell, having described these brutal details, shows his audience a video of himself doing one of these procedures. And at the end of the video, after the sound of the suction machine taking the brains out of the baby’s head, the audience applauds.
    BABY BODY PARTS
    Fetal tissue wholesalers are companies which place employees in abortion clinics to harvest tissue, limbs, organs, etc. from aborted babies. This material is then shipped to researchers working for universities, pharmaceutical companies and government agencies. Although it is against federal law to sell human tissue or body parts, these organizations have devised a system to circumvent this restriction. Technically, all fetal material they harvest is “donated” to them by the clinics. However, they do pay a “site fee” to the clinics for the right to access the tissue. The tissue is then “donated” to the researchers who in turn pay the wholesalers for the cost of retrieval. Profit is realized by the wholesalers’ ability to set their own retrieval fees.

  46. #47 Anton P. Nym
    February 16, 2012

    Nurse, Larry is ready for his thorazine now.

    — Steve

  47. #48 JGC
    February 16, 2012

    It was a gathering of abortionists — men and women who make their living by killing babies.

    That’s quite an extraordinary claim, Larry. if you want anyone to consider it seriously I’m afraid you’ll have to provide credible support.

    So tell us: by what rational argument does terminating a pregnancy at all stages of development following fertilization represent the killing of an actual human person, rather than the destruction of a human zygote, embryo or fetus?

    Re: Fetal tissue wholesalers, I presume that you’re arguing regulations be amended to limit the wholesaler’s ability to determine the fee they’ll charge for retrieving and distributing fetal tissues. Is price gouging really a big problem here? I’d think market forces would be sufficient to keep costs reasonable–if one harvesting agency charges too much, just contract with another in its stead.

  48. #49 lilady
    February 16, 2012

    I’m a nurse, but I need a doctor’s order for Thorazine for Larry.

    I think I might suggest that Larry’s prescribing psychiatrist consider depot injections of an anti-psychotic drug:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19167596

  49. #50 flip
    February 16, 2012

    @239 Wow

    You do realise that Wiki Answers is worse than Wikipedia don’t you? Anyone can write an answer for Wiki Answers, and there’s no editorial oversight to ensure answers are based in fact.

  50. #51 Wow
    February 17, 2012

    “You do realise that Wiki Answers is worse than Wikipedia don’t you?”

    And you DO realise that is merely an ad hom, right? Which is easily refuted with another link:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dentition

    So now you have to say “Wikipedia is no good too!”. Rather like the fundies whining about how Wikipedia is wrong, you need to go to Conservapedia.

    But that claim goes south too:

    http://www.earthlife.net/mammals/teeth.html

    The canines of hippopotamuses can also be quite impressive.

    But thanks for showing yet another M.O. of the religious fundies being applied here by “the science guys”…

    Can I say “Fakers!”?

  51. #52 JGC
    February 17, 2012

    Uh, wow…you did read the wikipedia article you linked to, right?

    And you do realize that rather than support a claim that dogs do not have ‘chisel teeth’ and that humans do, it states that both dogs and humans have the same four types of teeth (canines, incisors, premolars and molars)–right?

  52. #53 JGC
    February 17, 2012

    Wow, I can’t help but notice you haven’t responded to my post at 242. Can we shelve the question of veterinary dentistry long enough to do so? No one is condemning Camille Marino because of a disagreement about whether or not dogs have molars or incisors, after all. She’s being condemned on the basis of her actions.

    Do you believe that that if an animal rights activist initially tries using ‘diplomacy’ (i.e., rational argument) but fails to acheive the goal of eradicating the use of animal models they are then justified in moving beyond diplomacy, cannot be condemned and should not be held accountable for employing other means which include the organized harassment of undergrad students, threats of violence against researchers and their immediate families, posting of said researchers personal information online to at the very least to demonstrate they and their family’s vulnerability to potential violence if not also to abet actual physical assault should the researchers continue to employ animal models, etc.?

  53. #54 JayK
    February 17, 2012

    Orac, you might want to take a look at Dr. Roy Greek’s posting about this article.

    http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/animal-rights/bad-arguments-both-sides

    I think it is nothing more than a poor attempt to defend Marino.

  54. #55 Mike Crichton
    February 17, 2012

    Wow: It is not a matter of whether or not wikipedia is accurate, it is whether or not it says what you claim it does. It does NOT, so the point you are trying to make is moot.

  55. #56 Science Mom
    February 17, 2012

    But thanks for showing yet another M.O. of the religious fundies being applied here by “the science guys”…

    Can I say “Fakers!”?

    When most people make such a monumental jack-ass out of themselves, they either slink away or they say, “I made an error, whoops or sorry”. Then there are those like you who just keep digging deeper. You claimed dogs and cats had no molars, they do so you instead shift to canines. And as someone mentioned, mammalian dentition is really moot; we are discussing Marino’s arrest and tactics.

  56. #57 Lawrence
    February 17, 2012

    @Wow – you know you’ve lost the argument when all you have to fall back on is semantics about an area of discussion that doesn’t relate to the topic at hand.

    So, ever going to address what I wrote?

  57. #58 Johnny
    February 17, 2012

    What it says in Wikipedia doesn’t really matter, the question of “Is man a meat-eater or a vegetarian by nature?” was answered over 20 years ago by my Unca Cecil, a man who is never wrong.

    http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/674/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature

    The money quote:

    We’re equipped with an all-purpose set of ivories equally suited to liver and onions.

    Of course, this has no bearing on the question of wether Camille Marino deserves jail time and fines for her actions – she does.

  58. #59 Wow
    February 17, 2012

    JGC, I guess that means I was wrong to bring in teeth as defining our diet…

    Oh, look, it wasn’t me, it was Diane in post 92, not me.

    Gosh, maybe I did some sort of Jedi mind-trick on her and made her do it….

    In it weird hoe, in the rish to scream me down, all you ‘bright’ people missed that. Bit dim, aren’t you, for ‘brights’ and all…

    Can I add ‘lamers’? You lot certainly deserve it.

  59. #60 herr doktor bimler
    February 17, 2012

    I can’t see anyone in this thread defining themselves as ‘brights’, so Wow seems to be arguing with his or her own imagined adversaries rather than with actual people. Perhaps it is wisest at this point to tiptoe discreetly away to let Wow and the voices continue the argument in peace.

  60. #61 Science Mom
    February 17, 2012

    In it weird hoe, in the rish to scream me down, all you ‘bright’ people missed that. Bit dim, aren’t you, for ‘brights’ and all…

    Can I add ‘lamers’? You lot certainly deserve it.

    Pretty funny coming from the grundle bunny who doesn’t think cats and dogs don’t have molars and the difference between a philosophical and scientific discussion.

  61. #62 JGC
    February 17, 2012

    Wow @ 260

    Why are you still addressing dentition and diet, rather than answer the question you’ve been asked several times now regarding whether or no you believe Camille Marino’s actions (harassment of undergrads, threats of violence against researchers and their families, posting of their personal information, etc.) are justified if previous ‘diplomatic’ (i.e., rational) attempts have failed to achieve her goals?

    (As for the whole ‘lamers’ name-calling thing, hope that works for you on some emotional level. It does absolutely nothing however to support your argument nor undermine an opponent’s.)

  62. #63 Chris
    February 17, 2012

    I wonder if it is the same “Wow” who is having trouble understanding my question here.

  63. #64 flip
    February 17, 2012

    @251 Wow

    My point was that one can login to that site, make your own changes, post a link, and say “here’s proof”. There’s no way of knowing who edited what, why and when. Wikipedia at least has editorial oversight and a historical record visible for transparency. Even Conservapedia has a historical record and visible editorial oversight. So no, what I’m doing is no different than suggesting you link to a relevant respected peer-reviewed journal, not some site where accuracy is not only not monitored but not cared about. As with many of these ‘answer’ websites, the answers given are often incredibly incorrect and provided without references to actual evidence. Posting that link and announcing it’s relevant is no different than posting a link to Whale.to and hoping no one notices that the information is likely incorrect.

    I will reiterate JGC’s comment @252: did you read and understand the Wikipedia article you linked to? And his comment @253, where you’re asked to answer a more pertinent question…

    PS. For a better example of ad homs, check comment #259.

  64. #65 Wow
    February 18, 2012

    I guess the problem is I started with not complete obeisance to that symbol of American Exceptionalism, Free Speech, huh.

    “I can’t see anyone in this thread defining themselves as ‘brights'”

    So you’re admitting you’re all dim?

    Fair enough. That does gel quite nicely with your attempts at self-justification. It’s identical to the flaccid rhetorical circle-jerk that you get when you dare come on to a religious site and say that they need to consider whether their arguments and bigotries need reviewing.

    But I guess since there aren’t any atheists here, the religious fundamentalist manner I seem to have awakened is explained.

  65. #66 TBruce
    February 18, 2012

    “I can’t see anyone in this thread defining themselves as ‘brights'”

    So you’re admitting you’re all dim?

    Oooh, well done, Mr. Clever Clogs!

    Now that you have that out of the way, maybe you could be arsed to answer those questions, hmm?

  66. #67 flip
    February 18, 2012

    @265 Wow

    bigotries need reviewing

    I guess that explains your assumption that everyone here is American. Thank you very much for actually addressing my points though, you’ve shown yourself to be quite the hypocrite.

  67. #68 JGC
    February 18, 2012

    I guess the problem is I started with not complete obeisance to that symbol of American Exceptionalism, Free Speech, huh.

    I’m not following, wow–how is any consideration ‘obeisance’ to freedom of expression germane to the discussion? Surely you’re not suggesting that other posters have exceeded their right by responding to your posts in a manner you dislike, or that Marino’s right to free speech precludes her being held accountable for what she chooses to say or do.

    That does gel quite nicely with your attempts at self-justification.

    What behavior or expression is it you feel requires justification? Be specific.

  68. #69 Lucia
    February 19, 2012

    @ Andreas: how exactly is hunting bad? At least hunters are noble enough to give their prey a fighting chance, unlike the common person, who gets his/her meat from factory farms. Hunting is one of the most ethical means of eating meat if it is managed properly.

    I have noticed that the animal rights types love to attack those they consider easy targets: undergrad scientists (and a girl, of course), women who wear fur coats, and celebrity actresses who wear fur. I would love to see these vile nutcases attack hunters, bikers who wear leather, athletes who devour steaks…maybe they would get their behinds kicked and subsequently shut the hell up.

    Also, if they would work off their angst developing scientific methods that reduce the need for animal testing maybe it would solve this problem. However, I do not think these people actually care about animals. I think they care about being able to put their anger about life into a seemingly “righteous” cause. It gives them a similar effect to religious worship, most likely. Damn the damned human psyche.

  69. #70 Bronze Dog
    February 19, 2012

    However, I do not think these people actually care about animals. I think they care about being able to put their anger about life into a seemingly “righteous” cause. It gives them a similar effect to religious worship, most likely. Damn the damned human psyche.

    That’s certainly the impression I get about a lot of them.

    I realize I’m showing my cynical side, but I also imagine there are also a subgroup trolling in the physical world, using the cause as an excuse to carry out extreme antisocial behavior “for the lulz.” They pick easy targets because bullying isn’t fun when the target can fight back.

    I suspect every protest movement has to work to control or expel both of those sorts. I don’t know the historical reasons behind it, but when it comes to animal welfare, the fanatics and trolls are hogging the spotlight. For those who are sincerely concerned about animals it’s going to be one hell of an uphill battle if they want to change public perception.

  70. #71 David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E.
    February 19, 2012

    @Wow…

    did nobody tell you while you were growing up that your mouth is for talking out of, and not your arse?

  71. #72 Lawrence
    February 19, 2012

    @Wow – who continues to refuse to answer the direct questions posed to him. He truly is arguing with himself.

  72. #73 Joe
    February 19, 2012

    @Composer99

    Wow mainly comments on climate science threads

    Ironically enough, climate scientists also get death threats regularly from denier thugs but according to Wow, we just don’t understand them and they probably tried to be diplomatic and had no choice but to make threats against scientists and their loved ones. We don’t know them, so we can never judge them for their actions!

    Wow, I note that it is usually the anti-science side that resorts to threats of violence when the evidence is not on their side. You sure you want to stick up for scumbags like this?

  73. #74 Graham
    February 23, 2012

    It begins…

    “COLUMBUS, Ohio — An Ohio woman who compared animal-welfare work to the liberation of World War II concentration camps has been charged with soliciting a hit man to fatally shoot or slit the throat of a random fur-wearer, federal authorities said.”

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46477980/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/feds-ohio-animal-rights-activist-offered-random-fur-wearer-be-killed/

  74. #75 Antaeus Feldspar
    February 23, 2012

    I hope they charge that woman with terrorism, as that is exactly what the kill-a-random-fur-wearer-to-send-a-message scheme is.

  75. #76 Graham
    February 23, 2012

    At least, unlike Ingrid Newkirk et al she was quite honest about what she wanted.

    None of this, here is the persons address and if something bad should happen to them, I’m not responsible because I didn’t actually ask for it to happen.

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.