Respectful Insolence

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 Thom Denick
    February 8, 2012

    My guess after reading the NIO article “Donal O’Leary got a court order” here:

    http://www.negotiationisover.net/2012/01/12/donal-oleary-got-court-order-to-have-his-info-removed-from-nio/

    Is that when the cop saw Camille’s license was expired he ran her through the system. Since she has a criminal contempt charge in January in Michigan, they arrested her on the spot due to an active warrant. This is completely her own doing for ignoring and even taunting the court “…good luck collecting your $6,281.72!”

    So I guess they’ll get that $6,281.72?

  2. #2 Terry Ward
    February 8, 2012

    Animal-rights whacking is the new groovy thing these days…especially as the Beef&Bacon Big Boys got the heebie-jeebies bad… thanks to all the undercover vids rolling in.

    One might say though, that the pertwitzed Ms. Marino no more represents mainstream animal-rights then Fred Phelps represents Baptists or Dr. Mengele represents physicians.

    The fringe is fun, of course.
    On a slow day.

  3. #3 Andreas Johansson
    February 8, 2012

    Obligatory rhetorical question about why these creeps target scientists and students rather than, say, hunters.

  4. #4 sophia8
    February 8, 2012

    Obligatory rhetorical question about why these creeps target scientists and students rather than, say, hunters.

    Or genuine animal abusers.

  5. #5 Anj
    February 8, 2012

    :(

    I subscribe to an animal hoarding news list.
    (DIY search: use “animals seized”)

    Many animal hoarders/abusers insist their animals are loved and cared for. The most socially adept of them portray themselves as rescuers and animal rights champions, which results in some in the animal rights community defending and donating to them.

    I stopped trying to understand the contradictions after a while.

  6. #6 Acleron
    February 8, 2012

    We had this in the UK. At first the more violent were described as fringe, nut-job etc and were not taken that seriously even by the police except by the people who were attacked. Of course they gained confidence from the lack of action against them.

    One incident was the firing of a rock from a hunting catapult through a window, curtains and embedding in a piano some 30 feet away. This could easily have been lethal and it was pure luck that nobody was injured. The vehicle they used was identified and the same vehicle was apprehended by the police within an hour and a hunting catapult, similarly sized rocks and ball bearings were found. No action was taken by the police on the grounds we couldn’t identify the individual who had used the catapult.

    It was many years before the police were convinced to take action but finally the central gang was arrested and convicted. The investigation showed how the more moderate protesters of vivisection were supporting the psychos either directly or through fund raising.

    So I advise taking this seriously and forcing action as soon as possible.

    For instance, is there no ‘Incitement to violence’ crime in the USA?

  7. #7 Composer99
    February 8, 2012

    IMO Marino is aiding and abetting death threats, in addition to making direct threats herself. As I understand it, death threats most definitely do not constitute protected speech.

  8. #8 Terry Ward
    February 8, 2012

    Anj. if you were to spend a great deal of your life involved in rescue, you would understand better.
    There is a vast difference between saving/rescuing and saving/hoarding.
    .
    A true hoarder of anything, be it plastic bags or poodles…by definition NEVER willingly parts with whatever they are hoarding, regardless of and without thought to the consequences.
    For a rescue to turn ‘hoarder’, the end result might be the same but the motivation is entirely different.
    A rescue turned ‘hoarder’ has tried countless times to find homes for unwanted animals in their care…
    And failing this, they turn, in desperation, to keeping them…
    The angst of so many homeless hopeless animals in one’s immediate care slowly begins to blind one to the realities of the difficulties involved in caring for so many.

    May I suggest that you might revisit the part where they say ‘walk a mile in a man’s shoes’
    before judging too harshly.

  9. #9 Hmm
    February 8, 2012

    http://www.iwanttotrylaminine.com/research.pdf Off topic, but can you talk about this stuff at some point? My dad’s all excited about this new ‘miracle drug’ and I, of course, am skeptical…

  10. #10 Gerry Mander
    February 8, 2012

    (recreating a comment that was sent just as I lost connectivity – apologies if there is any duplication)

    My understanding is that Marino’s “feefeeble-minded proxies” have redoubled their vile harassment of Donal O’Leary, demanding that he drop his charges against her.

    In point of fact, the charges are not Dr. O’Leary’s, nor does he have any power to have the charges dismissed.

    Camille Marino is facing criminal contempt of court charges, which were drawn up by the judge in the case.

    Marino, by her words and actions in defiance of the court, brought the charges upon herself.

  11. #11 palindrom
    February 8, 2012

    Andreas @3 — to answer your rhetorical question, hunters have guns. These folks go for the softest of targets — undergrads.

    Lisa (singing): “How many roads must a man walk down, before they call him a man?”

    Homer: Seven!

    Lisa: Dad, it’s a rhetorical question!

    Homer: Uhhh ….. eight!

    Lisa: Do you know what “rhetorical” means?

    Homer (indignantly) : Do _I_ know what “rhetorical” means?

  12. #12 fusilier
    February 8, 2012

    @8
    andreas johansson asked

    Obligatory rhetorical question about why these creeps target scientists and students rather than, say, hunters.

    Because we tend to shoot back?

    fusilier

    James 2:24

  13. #13 fusilier
    February 8, 2012

    @3, not @8

    Oopsie, need to get my trifocals adjusted.

    fusilier

    James 2:24

  14. #14 dandover
    February 8, 2012

    On her blog, Marino refers to Dr. O’Leary as a “war criminal”. That tells me a lot about her justification for her behavior. She views herself as being at war (with “the establishment”, I presume) and therefore the traditional rules of acting responsibly and in accordance with the law simply no longer apply to her. This goes way beyond free speech and has ventured into the territory of treason and should be investigated and prosecuted as such, IMHO.

  15. #15 Denis
    February 8, 2012

    … and Al Capone went down for tax violations. So what? I say use all legal measures to take such sociopaths away from us.

  16. #16 Paul
    February 8, 2012

    Thanks for picking this up Orac, it was very satisfying to learn of Marino’s arrest, now I just hope that she gets a decent stretch of jail-time.

    Camille Marino is a a violent and unhinged extremist, there’s no doubt about it, and her pretensions that what she does is free speech protected by the first amendment don’t fool anyone apart from her minions and supporters (including a certain professor at UTEP http://speakingofresearch.com/2011/12/20/best-of-friends-university-of-texas-professor-helps-to-fund-extremism/). Her behavior even got the attention of the SPLC – no strangers to all forms of extremism – who describe her as “radical animal liberation activist who advocates violence against scientists who use animals in their research” http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2012/02/06/radical-animal-rights-activist-arrested-at-university-of-florida/

    Terry Ward “One might say though, that the pertwitzed Ms. Marino no more represents mainstream animal-rights then Fred Phelps represents Baptists or Dr. Mengele represents physicians.”

    Don’t be so sure, it’s clear from media coverage and FaceBook comments (e.g. http://www.gainesville.com/article/20120206/ARTICLES/120209643/1150/news09?Title=Two-animal-rights-activist-arrested-at-protest) she has been working closely in recent weeks with an animal rights campaigner named Michael Budkie, whose group -Stop Animal Experimentation Now (SAEN) – likes to portray itself as a mainstream “watchdog” organization, and frequently gets media coverage with its allegations.

    While we’re used to SAEN’s inaccuracies and misrepresentations, for a few examples out of many see http://speakingofresearch.com/2010/10/29/defending-against-the-inaccurate-and-sometimes-downright-false/, he has in the past distanced himself, in public at least, from the more violent extremists; that mask appears to be slipping.

  17. #17 DL
    February 8, 2012

    Interesting no-one from the Harvey animal test
    cult seems to be condemning what,in effect is
    the torture of Ms Marino(whom they rightly or
    wrongly assume to be Jewish)by threatening to
    extradite her from tropical Florida to arctic
    Michigan,all presumably to get `confessions` for
    a Show Trial similar to that of John Brown or
    Jesus Christ,both of whom used actual
    violence,the latter to actually free blood
    ritual animal abuse victims-an unforgivable
    `crime` then as it seems to be now.

    Assaulting and generally abusing women is of
    course a trademark of the Pro-Test type cult
    centered first around Tipu Aziz in Oxford.

    HSUS`s First Strike program revealed that abuse of
    animals,women,children and (often undiscovered)
    serial killing usually come as a package.

    Anyone open-minded,and in doubt,who hasn`t read
    Paul Camster`s `Apocalypse`account of the blood
    ritual cult`s origins and holocausts might find
    convincing evidence in the post of`DJ`
    16 Oct 2011, 06:14 at the forum about
    the similarly depraved assault on Ms Dunbar(an associate of Ms Marino).
    It details the plot by Harvey animal
    test cult extremists to burn women alive-only to
    be expected in the absence of a single apology
    or condemnation from cult members:

    http://artvoice.com/issues/v10n37/week_in_review/monkey_business/index_html

  18. #18 DL
    February 8, 2012

    `dandover` | February 8, 2012 8:36 AM mentions
    that Ms Marino called “Dr. O’Leary a “war criminal”.
    If Dr. O’Leary is a member of the Harvey animal test cult,
    technically, they never surrendered formally
    from their state of war against their fellow
    citizens(effectively a world war including North
    America)when their allies did in 1646.
    As their commander in chief(CharlesI) WAS convicted of
    war-crimes AND treason,they are still
    technically accomplices to that,and have never denied it.

  19. #19 NJ
    February 8, 2012

    OOOOOooooKKkkkaaaaayyyyy….

    Let me throw this one out to the crowd: How many Timecubes should this guy be awarded?

  20. #20 Calli Arcale
    February 8, 2012

    Orac:

    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.

    Although in my state, expired driver’s licenses remain valid forms of identification, that isn’t true in Florida. According to the article, presenting an expired license as a form of ID is a midemeanor. I would suspect this has something to do with the relatively high rate of illegal immigration in that state. For a misdemeanor, one would probably normally be booked, arraigned, given a court date, and then released on their own recognizance. But once they ran her ID and found out about the violated court order, I’m sure the judge would not have been keen to do that.

    Acleron:

    For instance, is there no ‘Incitement to violence’ crime in the USA?

    Yes, there is, but proving it beyond a shadow of a doubt can be difficult; IANAL, but I think you have to prove the defendent meant it as an incitement to violence rather than just saying stupid stuff or speaking metaphorically. (Stupidity and metaphors are generally protected speech. Death threats aren’t. In the end, it would probably come down to the quality of the lawyers.) I think it’s more often used as probable cause than as an actual criminal charge.

  21. #21 kruuth
    February 8, 2012

    Not to derail, what was that link to the alt medicine with the “I sue, I sue, I sue” refrain?

  22. #22 lilady
    February 8, 2012

    This is really good news…and certainly ironic that she got arrested for an expired driver’s license. I looked up the Florida statute that applies:

    Florida Statute 322.03 (5) applies to a driver whose license is expired for more than 4 months. It is a 2nd Degree Misdemeanor and a Criminal Traffic Charge. Penalties include 6 months County-supervised probation or 60 days in a County jail and/or $ 500 fine.

    Was the renewal an “oversight” on her part or did she have unpaid moving or parking violations, that must be paid with late fees and fines before she could renew her license? Perhaps there were other civil judgments against her as well.

    She is scheduled to be extradited to Michigan for violating the court order to remove the vicious threats made against Dr. O’Leary.

    It’s about time that Universities crack down on these cranks who stalk their staff and their students.

  23. #23 daedalus2u
    February 8, 2012

    It can’t be a crime to posess an expired drivers license. It is a crime to drive using an expired drivers license.

    My guess is that #1 is correct and the cop ran it through the system and she showed up having a warrant against her.

    I think it is SOP, to run people who present expired ID through the system because if you have a warrant against you, usually you can’t renew things like your drivers license.

  24. #24 kruuth
    February 8, 2012

    #3
    The reason they don’t is because we shoot back :)

    No seriously, hunters perform an important service. If you had an overpopulation of deer you wind up with an overpopulation of wolves which is much, much worse.

    As far as Ms Marino goes Orac, she brought this on herself. She presented an expired license, which the cop ran as a standard course of procedure. It came back she had a warrant for a violent crime. He arrested her. Period. Had she presented an unexpired license most likely nothing would have happened to her.

  25. #25 Kelly
    February 8, 2012

    #21
    There is no way these people are thinking that logically (hunters provide a service).

    Researchers provide a service as well.
    I think the posters that suggested that the extremists are avoiding targets that can shoot them is more likely :)

  26. #26 Dianne
    February 8, 2012

    If you had an overpopulation of deer you wind up with an overpopulation of wolves which is much, much worse.

    I like wolves, but not near human population centers. Also deer bring deer ticks which are dangerous. Hunt away, but save the drinking until after you put your guns away, please.

  27. #27 Wow
    February 8, 2012

    “a woman who is every bit as despicable–more so, even–than the most die-hard antivaccinationist”

    But not the pro-lifers who like to shoot doctors for killing babies.

    There are shades of crazy. She’s only quite mad, not entirely bonkers loony.

    “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”

    If you hadn’t shown some concern for the ability to abuse the law, even for ends you prefer to see, this would make me put you at the zealot end of the spectrum too.

    I have no *pity* or *sympathy* for someone who doesn’t care about the law to be tromped by someone else who doesn’t care about the law.

    But I *DO* *REALLY* care about someone in power in the law structure who doesn’t care about the law.

    “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”

    We’ll make a rationalist out of you yet :-) You don’t believe in quoting Voltaire at every turn and recognise that freedom of speech must have a purpose and should not be a panacea for purposed hysterical rabble rousing.

    Scaring people is not terrible, but is still bad. You can get over fear. You can’t get over dead.

  28. #28 JayK
    February 8, 2012

    I’ve recently considered making my thesis about domestic terrorists, so this is excellent timing. She’s actually lucky they haven’t considered her a terrorist, yet. She pretty much fits the general definition.

  29. #29 Sheogorath
    February 8, 2012

    “Many animal hoarders/abusers insist their animals are loved and cared for. The most socially adept of them portray themselves as rescuers and animal rights champions, which
    results in some in the animal rights community defending and donating to them.”

    Would this have anything to do with PETA? I recall the case where they ‘rescued’ many dogs and cats from good, loving homes and left them to die slow, painful deaths from starvation in concrete-floored cages within an old animal shelter because they hadn’t the resources to look after them properly.

  30. #30 Ren
    February 8, 2012

    This reminds me of a Drew Carey episode where Mimi is working the cosmetics counter and is asked if the cosmetics were tested on animals. “Yes, and they looked marvelous,” she replies.

    In all seriousness, though, it’s not like these academic researchers are doing their work without IRB oversight. From what I remember when I was in school, you had to explain in detail what procedures you were going to use on the animals and how you would minimize their pain and prevent suffering. If you deviated one bit from that, your entire funding could get pulled and your project shut down.

    Am I right?

    Then why won’t she target IRBs (in a rational way) to make the restrictions even more stringent. I read her accounts of experiments on dogs at Wayne State, and it’s quite clear from my perspective that they’re either anecdotes or not based at all in reality.

  31. #31 AdamG
    February 8, 2012

    I’m secretly hoping for the Zoolander troll to make his reappearance on this thread. He’s probably too busy with his various modeling and DJ gigs though.

    Ah, those were the days.

  32. #32 ArtK
    February 8, 2012

    @ Kelly #22

    That’s also why you see the ARAs throwing blood on women wearing fur coats and not on bikers wearing leather. It’s hard to look tough and bully someone who can beat the crap out of you.

  33. #33 S. Williams
    February 8, 2012

    @ Hmm #8

    Does Orac take requests? Hmmm indeed…

  34. #34 The Midwesterner
    February 8, 2012

    @Calli Arcale

    The standard of proof in all criminal cases in the United States is beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond a shadow of a doubt. Probable cause is what is required to get a charge to trial. Of course laws vary from state to state, but many states have some form of “terroristic threats” which means you can’t say things about hurting someone that puts that person in fear that you might actually carry your threats out out. People are convicted of it all the time.

  35. #35 The Midwesterner
    February 8, 2012

    @Calli Arcale

    The standard of proof in all criminal cases in the United States is beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond a shadow of a doubt. Probable cause is what is required to get a charge to trial. Of course laws vary from state to state, but many states have some form of “terroristic threats” which means you can’t say things about hurting someone that puts that person in fear that you might actually carry your threats out out. People are convicted of it all the time.

  36. #36 LovleAnjel
    February 8, 2012

    @ Ren #30

    You’re thinking of IACUCs (animal care and use committees)…IRBs cover human subjects. They serve the same purpose – maintaining ethical & humane standards. And yes, you have to fill out a long form and go in front of a committee which includes veterinarians & ethicists before you can start your study. They can & do reject studies.

    This lovely woman is 100% against all animal testing, so she doesn’t care about IACUC oversight. She wants the whole system destroyed.

  37. #37 Calli Arcale
    February 8, 2012

    Call me a cynic, but I tend to think it depends on the quality of the lawyers whether or not they get convicted. Poor, barely literate guy? Yeah, he’ll get convicted. Animals rights activist with passionate supporters? They’ll want to be sure they have all the goods before going to trial, since prosecutors generally don’t get a “do-over”.

    You’re right, though — it’s reasonable doubt, not shadow of a doubt. I need coffee….

  38. #38 Dianne
    February 8, 2012

    One thing to remember about IACUC and IRBs is that they are required to have a member of the community at large on them. So a person who is concerned about animal welfare (or human welfare, for that matter) is always welcome to volunteer for an IACUC or IRB and participate in efforts to ensure that experimentation is humane and sensible. You’d think animal rights activists would be drawn to them, but apparently not.

  39. #39 Dan
    February 8, 2012

    I was all excited when I read Acleron’s post — the idea of a “hunting catapult” sounded cool as hell! Alas, it’s just what the Brits call a slingshot. Then again, if the animal welfare whackjobs start with catapults, can trebuchets be far behind?

  40. #40 Narad
    February 8, 2012

    It can’t be a crime to posess an expired drivers license. It is a crime to drive using an expired drivers license.

    The Florida statutes are so heavily cross-referenced that I’m having trouble getting a bearing on it, but it appears that they might have a general surrender requirement akin to an address-update requirement. I’ve seen one story reporting that Grossman had a suspended license, which Fla. Stat. 322.251 definitely requires surrender of.

  41. #41 Gabe Acock
    February 8, 2012

    What journal was the massage/gene expression article in? sounds neat.

  42. #42 etbmfa
    February 8, 2012

    For any OPEN minds on here, some info and research:
    Animal Welfare or Animal Rights?

    Here are some of the differences:
    As animal welfare advocates. . .

    • We seek to improve the treatment and well-being of animals.
    • We support the humane treatment of animals that ensures comfort and freedom from unnecessary pain and suffering.
    • We believe we have the right to “own” animals — they are our property.
    • We believe animal owners should provide loving care for the lifetime of their animals.

    As animal rights activists. . .

    • They seek to end the use and ownership of animals, including the keeping of pets.
    • They believe that any use of an animal is exploitation so, not only must we stop using animals for food and clothing, but pet ownership must be outlawed as well.
    • They want to obtain legal rights for animals as they believe that animals and humans are equal.
    • They use false and unsubstantiated allegations of animal abuse to raise funds, attract media attention and bring supporters into the movement.
    • (The Inhumane Crusade, Daniel T. Oliver – Capital Research Center)
    For more information:
    http://www.cfodconline.org/
    http://www.humanewatch.com
    http://www.bewareanimalradicals.com
    http://www.petpac.net/
    http://www.exposeanimalrights.com/
    http://www.naiaonline.org
    http://www.saveourdogs.net
    http://www.nathanwinograd.com
    http://www.saova.org

  43. #43 MosesZD
    February 8, 2012

    First of all, you can be arrested without charges and held. It’s called pre-charge detention.

    Second, when you’ve committed a crime and there is an arrest warrant out for you. It’s perfectly normal in any civilized society to extradite the accused where the matter will be handled in the proper channels.

    Let’s be clear. She’s a fugitive. She may be innocent. But she’s still a fugitive. And nothing here is sleazy in any sort of police-power-abuse scenario.

    And, believe me, I’m not a police/cop fan. I rather don’t trust them, and for good reason, my step dad was a cop and I know way too many cops.

  44. #44 Catskin Gloves
    February 8, 2012

    http://www.gainesville.com/article/20120206/ARTICLES/120209643

    Camille Marino and Lisa Grossman, part of the animal rights group Negotiation is Over, were protesting outside the Gator Gala awards ceremony at Emerson Alumni Hall. Gainesville police arrested Marino on an out-of-state warrant and Grossman for a suspended driver’s license.

    Powerful pieces of law ‘out of state/extradition’ warrants

  45. #45 Narad
    February 8, 2012

    She may be innocent.

    Huh? She failed to comply with a personal protection order, continues to be out of compliance, and made a point of publicly thumbing her nose at the court. That ship has sailed for cat-killer Marino.

  46. #46 Alafair R.
    February 8, 2012

    @ sophia8 and @ kruuth REALLY??? genuine animal abusers? and hunters are doing a service? Are you kidding? Is that what you all tell yourself so you can sleep at night? and So you can do your so called “Jobs” Which is scientific fruad at the tax payers expense

  47. #47 Narad
    February 8, 2012

    REALLY??? genuine animal abusers? and hunters are doing a service? Are you kidding? Is that what you all tell yourself so you can sleep at night?

    OK, pick your species. Better yet, pick endemic chronic wasting disease versus a healthy deer population; hobby deer hunters seem to prefer the former, just by the way.

  48. #48 Alafair
    February 8, 2012

    Nature manages itself through size of habitat, availability of food and water, natural predators, severe weather conditions. Urban development’s destruction of wildlife habitat calls for the establishment of refuges—not sport hunting. If hunting is “necessary” to control overpopulation and prevent “nuisance-animals,” why is this argument applied only to white-tailed deer? Reality: Most states deliberately boost deer populations to provide prey for hunters. State game agencies allow hunting to “manage” artificially stimulated “surplus animals.” There are no surpluses in nature. Ecology functions in natural cycles.
    White-tailed deer account for only 2% (6 million) of the 200 million animals killed yearly by hunters. 25% (50 million) are morning doves and 15% (30 million) are squirrels. Millions more are geese and ducks. Have you ever heard the wildlife-management excuse applied to doves, ducks, or geese? In fact, wildlife managers restrict waterfowl killings so that species don’t become extinct! Sport hunting does not exist to manage wildlife. Sport hunting exists as “enjoyable recreation.”

  49. #49 Alafair
    February 8, 2012

    and what endemic chronic wasting disease might you be referring to? whatever it is hunting has no effect on it.

  50. #50 blackbirdmarsh
    February 8, 2012

    O’leary’s experiments were painful and unnecessary. They have been not over seen well. They have drawn the complaint of PCRM ,a well respected group. http://www.pcrm.org/pdfs/research/research/WayneStateUSDAComplaint101911Final.pdf
    Some people when they see the voiceless being tortured use the tools they have at hand. I don’t agree with violence but peaceful protests are a right.

  51. #51 Terry Ward
    February 8, 2012

    Seems like an enormous amount of drama dedicated to one somewhat unhinged person.

  52. #52 blackbirdmarsh
    February 8, 2012

    O’leary’s experiments were painful and unnecessary. They have been not overseen well. They have drawn the complaint of PCRM ,a well respected group. http://www.pcrm.org/pdfs/research/research/WayneStateUSDAComplaint101911Final.pdf
    Some people, when they see the voiceless being tortured ,use the tools they have at hand. I don’t agree with violence but peaceful protests are a right.

  53. #53 Alafair
    February 8, 2012

    @Narad Urban development’s destruction of wildlife habitat calls for the establishment of refuges—not sport hunting. If hunting is “necessary” to control overpopulation and prevent “nuisance-animals,” why is this argument applied only to white-tailed deer? Reality: Most states deliberately boost deer populations to provide prey for hunters. State game agencies allow hunting to “manage” artificially stimulated “surplus animals.” There are no surpluses in nature. Ecology functions in natural cycles.

    White-tailed deer account for only 2% (6 million) of the 200 million animals killed yearly by hunters. 25% (50 million) are morning doves and 15% (30 million) are squirrels. Millions more are geese and ducks. Have you ever heard the wildlife-management excuse applied to doves, ducks, or geese? In fact, wildlife managers restrict waterfowl killings so that species don’t become extinct! Sport hunting does not exist to manage wildlife. Sport hunting exists as “enjoyable recreation.”

  54. #54 Alafair
    February 8, 2012

    Terry do you know Camille, do you know that she is “Unhinged” no you don’t, that is the vivisectionist tactic is to dismiss Animal Rights people as crazy. It takes the heat off of you. There are some who will do what it takes to get you to stop. You know your fake experiments that you perform with your goverment grants that you get based on lies that the pharmacutical companies tell because after all money makes the world go round! follow the money

  55. #55 rfranklin
    February 8, 2012

    What Quenie went through is not mentioned by any of you..presumably you are unable to empathise..i call this psychosis.you may be gloating now while camille is detained but later on down the line your families or friends may fall foul of these laws, not so funny then maybe.Do you ever stop to think what motivates aras?Some people find animal suffering hard to take or understand..it hurts them to know that animals are locked in labs..frightened and in pain for years..unable to consent to their use,in situations they dont understand. Do scientists think they are the masterace?Maybe lab animals are todays holocaust victims..i dont expect any of you to agree with me and i dont care..Thank goodness i dont think like you do and i can live my life knowing i cause no intentional harm..we all know disease is caused by crap food..pollution, lack of exercise etc. animal testing is outdated..we are not pigs or rats..you are in it for the money i guess..thats whats wrong with the world, the mental illness of greed…a creatures suffering will be a joke to you..good luck with the rest of your lives and thank god i am not like you.

  56. #56 Science Mom
    February 8, 2012

    You know your fake experiments that you perform with your goverment grants that you get based on lies that the pharmacutical companies tell because after all money makes the world go round! follow the money

    That sounds like an animal rights wingnut tactic. No has to “know” someone personally to make an obvious assumption about their character, particularly when that person vomits their detritus all over the interwebz. And gee, no one made a cent on my animal testing but I did produce some stellar results that benefit sorry little gits like you.

  57. #57 Rich Woods
    February 8, 2012

    @Dan #39:

    I was all excited when I read Acleron’s post — the idea of a “hunting catapult” sounded cool as hell! Alas, it’s just what the Brits call a slingshot.

    We also have War Wolves.

  58. #58 Alafair
    February 8, 2012

    Science Mom, your tests will never ever benefit me or anyone. that is another lie you people tell yourselves. Animals and humans react differently to substances and some drugs are carcinogenic in humans but not in animals, or vice-versa.
    So how can you extrapolate accurate results? My mother what given Benedictine for morning sickness, proved safe on rats and monkeys my brother was born severely mentally retarded. What you do is fake scientific fruad

  59. #59 Steelclaws
    February 8, 2012

    @Alafair #51

    Reading Marino’s NIO website, which I have done in the past, is enough to tell she’s unhinged. No knowing her personally is necessary – and in fact, it’s something I’d avoid to the last.

  60. #60 Ren
    February 8, 2012

    Benedictine? The liqueur, the condiment, or the monk of the Order of St. Benedict?

    Scientific “fruad (sic)” or not, you need to back up your claims with evidence, Alafair. Tell us what you call “Benedictine” and cite some source where it is linked to mental retardation in utero. Should be easy, right?

  61. #61 Alafair
    February 8, 2012

    Here you go Ren: you would joke about someone elses misfortune: http://www.prescriptiondrug-info.com/Discuss/bendictine-163079_p3.htm

  62. #62 Alafair
    February 8, 2012

    Ren just google Bendictine and morning sickness and you will find plenty and you would make a joke out of someone else’s misfortune

  63. #63 Pareidolius
    February 8, 2012

    @Adam, I too am counting the minutes until Zoolander, our super awesome, super goodlooking, supermodel, animal rights activist returns to the fray. He was my favorite troll of all time, even if he failed to show for our dance-off.

  64. #64 Alafair
    February 8, 2012

    he progress that has been made in the study of AIDS has come from human clinical investigation and in vitro (cell and tissue culture) research. Animal models continue to be used even though they do not develop the human AIDS virus. The development of life saving protease inhibitors was delayed by misleading monkey data. Referring to efforts to develop an AIDS vaccine, leading AIDS researcher Dr. Mark Feinberg stated: “What good does it do you to test something in a monkey? You find five or six years from now that it works in the monkey, and then you test it in humans and you realize that humans behave totally differently from monkeys, so you’ve wasted five years”.

    Clearly, if we are going to make medical progress, a new approach is needed. Human medicine can no longer be based on veterinary medicine. It is fraudulent and dangerous to apply data from one species to another. There are endless examples of the differences between humans and non-human animals.
    1.PCP is a sedative for chimps
    2.Penicillin kills cats and guinea pigs but has saved many human lives.
    3.Arsenic is not poisonous to rats, mice, or sheep.
    4.Morphine is a sedative for humans but is a stimulant for cats, goats, and horses.
    5.Digitalis while dangerously raising blood pressure in dogs continues to save countless cardiac patients by lowering heart rate.
    The National Institutes of Health alone pours well over five billion dollars annually into superfluous animal experimentation. Abolishing animal research will mean these resources could be redirected into prevention and the types of research which actually have a chance of advancing human medicine and human health.

  65. #65 CM
    February 8, 2012

    It’s always interesting to me how you so-called “scientists” can be so self-righteous and smug and act outraged and call animal defenders terrorists. When in reality, you are the ones torturing, maiming, mutilating, and killing. It would be hilarious if not for the pain you inflict without batting an eyelash. And sciencemom, if there are any “little gits” in here, it’s you!

  66. #66 Drivebyposter
    February 8, 2012

    Ren just google Bendictine and morning sickness and you will find plenty and you would make a joke out of someone else’s misfortune

    No Ren is making fun of our misfortune (being stuck with unhinged people like you).

    Also,
    Protip: Just googling shit does not necessarily/usually lead you to reliable information. On the plus side, this explains a whole lot about how you came to your understanding of the world.

  67. #67 novalox
    February 8, 2012

    @alafair

    You made the claim, you must provide the evidence. And ancetdotal evidence and telling us to google for it doesn’t count.

    So post something, preferably from a quality peer-reviewed journal.

    Sshould be easy for you, right?

  68. #68 Alafair
    February 8, 2012

    My point is that animals and people do not react the same in testing so how can you produce safe products based on crap research and testing? The progress that has been made in the study of AIDS has come from human clinical investigation and in vitro (cell and tissue culture) research. Animal models continue to be used even though they do not develop the human AIDS virus. The development of life saving protease inhibitors was delayed by misleading monkey data. Referring to efforts to develop an AIDS vaccine, leading AIDS researcher Dr. Mark Feinberg stated: “What good does it do you to test something in a monkey? You find five or six years from now that it works in the monkey, and then you test it in humans and you realize that humans behave totally differently from monkeys, so you’ve wasted five years”.

    Clearly, if we are going to make medical progress, a new approach is needed. Human medicine can no longer be based on veterinary medicine. It is fraudulent and dangerous to apply data from one species to another. There are endless examples of the differences between humans and non-human animals.
    1.PCP is a sedative for chimps
    2.Penicillin kills cats and guinea pigs but has saved many human lives.
    3.Arsenic is not poisonous to rats, mice, or sheep.
    4.Morphine is a sedative for humans but is a stimulant for cats, goats, and horses.
    5.Digitalis while dangerously raising blood pressure in dogs continues to save countless cardiac patients by lowering heart rate.
    The National Institutes of Health alone pours well over five billion dollars annually into superfluous animal experimentation. Abolishing animal research will mean these resources could be redirected into prevention and the types of research which actually have a chance of advancing human medicine and human health.

  69. #69 alafair
    February 8, 2012

    the moderator is choosing what to postand what not to post of my comments so i am outta here and this probably wont be posted either

  70. #70 herr doktor bimler
    February 8, 2012

    do you know Camille, do you know that she is “Unhinged” no you don’t

    Good point. It is wrong to assume that someone is deranged when “”morally corrupt” or “stupid and self-dramatising” are also available as explanations.

  71. #71 TBruce
    February 8, 2012

    They have drawn the complaint of PCRM ,a well respected group.

    Well respected? Now, that’s just hilarious.

  72. #72 Anj
    February 8, 2012

    Animal hoarders are a varied lot.

    I’m more interested in community response to hoarders, which ranges from ignoring them, supporting them WRT to hoarders who use the “Rescue” front, prosecuting them and even exploiting them by dumping animals on the properties of known hoarders.

    Getting authorities to realize that hoarding is a symptom of mental illness is essential, since the relapse rate of hoarding is one of the highest known.

  73. #73 Pareidolius
    February 8, 2012

    The most famous case involving the drug is Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993). These suits were led by plaintiff attorney Melvin Belli.[4] The star witness for the case against Bendectin, William McBride, was later found to have falsified research on teratogenic effects of the drug, and was struck off the medical register in Australia.[5][6]

    My heart goes out to your poor mother. Did she have any children who weren’t mentally disabled?

  74. #74 Travis
    February 8, 2012

    alafair said,

    the moderator is choosing what to postand what not to post of my comments so i am outta here and this probably wont be posted either

    Moron. If you actually spent a little time here you would realize that almost nothing gets blocked and that dissenting opinions, no matter how stupid, end up getting posted. However, there is automatic moderation and if you post too many times in a short time period, or include too many links, your posts are likely to get held up but will likely eventually be posted. See, there is a nice, simple explanation for your woe. It is amazing how many people immediately assume they are being repressed. I wonder how many animal rights blogs have such an open commenting policy. My guess would be that their comment policy has more similarity to AoA than here.

    Of course, if you have gone already you will not see this. But I have seen so many people flounce I imagine it is likely you will see it.

  75. #75 herr doktor bimler
    February 8, 2012

    just google Bendictine and morning sickness and you will find plenty

    Perhaps there are different Googles, or the personalisation of searches goes further than I realised. What *I* encountered was a interminable list of research reports, agreeing that Bendectin was a useful drug for keeping people of hospital, with no increased risk of birth defects that anyone can find.

  76. #76 blackbirdmarsh
    February 8, 2012

    @TBruce They are well respected by people who have a moral responsibility to treat living creatures w/ respect.

  77. #77 Drivebyposter
    February 8, 2012

    Except for humans. You apparently don’t have a problem with children being harmed and threatened for what you consider to be crimes that their parents commit.

    Your judgment is TOTALLY worth listening to. /sarcasm.

  78. #78 Narad
    February 8, 2012

    and what endemic chronic wasting disease might you be referring to? whatever it is hunting has no effect on it.

    You have only failed to answer the original question and managed to dig a deeper hole. Let’s just cut to the chase: Was it K3wl and R8tshuz for Marino to kill her cat on hygienic principle?

  79. #79 Pinkamena, Panic Pony
    February 9, 2012

    A pre-emptive “fuck off” to our teenage “friends” being shuttled in here to make their veiled threats and baseless accusations against us.

    Alafair, first, pick how you want your name to look. Second, stick the fucking flounce. Third, much as you wish to deny it, animal testing benefits you. Denying that it does only makes you look scientifically ignorant in addition to how you look just generally ignorant.

    blackbirdmarsh, PCRM is a PETA frontgroup, and PETA are known aiders and abetters of open terrorists. Disbelieve me? Look up Rodney Coronado and how much money they’ve given him. They are not “respected” and are seen as a joke except by the people predisposed to their anti-scientific hate speech.

    rfranklin, I’ll be outside with your complimentary dead porcupine, once you come down off that cross.

    Anyone I’ve missed, see first paragraph.

  80. #80 flip
    February 9, 2012

    @64 Alafair

    “Abolishing animal research will mean these resources could be redirected into prevention and the types of research which actually have a chance of advancing human medicine and human health. ”

    You might be able to convince me of this argument. I’d love to see SBM get away from using animals in labs (although I understand why it’s done and am grateful for the medical discoveries) and I only have a passing understanding so I’m not convinced of one side or another.

    *HOWEVER* this concept of stopping the use of animals in labs does not in any way excuse inciting or using violence as a means to get change. There’s a way to have this conversation without resorting to it – and yet you defend it? How does this make you any better than the people you think are harming animals? Humans are animals too: if you can defend the well-being of other species, you can’t possibly leave out humans from that ideal (without making yourself sound stupid that is).

  81. #81 herr doktor bimler
    February 9, 2012

    Alafair’s comments at 64 and 68 — that he or she was so indignant about their failure to immediately appear — turn out to be plagiarised.

    3.Arsenic is not poisonous to rats, mice, or sheep.
    You would think people would have noticed that back in the days before Warfarin, when commercial rodent poisons were arsenic-based.
    [Citation: any number of Agatha Christie novels]

    4.Morphine is a sedative for humans but is a stimulant for cats, goats, and horses.
    I’m gonna guess that you’re not a vet.

    1.PCP is a sedative for chimps
    It is also a sedative to humans. You could look it up.

  82. #82 TBruce
    February 9, 2012

    blackbirdmarsh:

    You respect an organization whose very name is a lie? The so-called Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has a membership that is about 95% non-physicians.

    Their leader, Dr. Neil Barnard, seems to also be economical with the truth.

  83. #83 Bruce of Canuckistan
    February 9, 2012

    Just to add a few datapoints, long ago I spent a fair chunk of years as what many would call a “radical” enviro (in goals, not methods). I both watched and participated in several attempts by several enviro groups to ally with “animal rights” activists, and in every case and with every individual, we found:

    * It was highly destructive to enviro political goals, even wilderness preservation, for reasons that should have been obvious.

    * AR activists don’t actually empathize with animals. They empathize with an imagined projection of platonic innocence. Many have very strange, or zero, actual experience with animals.

    * There seems to be some kind of emotional disorder at work, one shared with anti-abortion activists. Sometimes it seemed the people involved were very angry about their lives, but held a taboo against fighting for their self interest. Therefore, they found imaginary foci, an image of perfect innocence, in defense of which any expression of rage was acceptable. As people, I have never met, in any other type of activist group, a more distilled pool of mental illness.

    * They turned accusations on each other and parallel activists with predictable and spooky frequency.

    * For a time period a group I was in was in a political alliance with a broad-based right-wing group for a narrow common cause. Many good stories exchanged over beers once we realized we had something in common; their fear and loathing of the behavior and destruction caused by anti-abortion christians, and exact parallels the stories had with our experience with AR activists within the left.

    * On this or Orac’s previous thread, there was a debate about whether AR people opposed leashing dogs. In fact, I have been accosted by such persons objecting to having my dog on a leash. In a city. 50m from a busy arterial road.

    * More offensively, I’ve many times overheard the more AR-leaning dog owners express the opinion that when a dog mauls a child sympathy should fall on the dog every time due to their “perfect innocence”, which apparently even human toddlers do not possess. Normally you can spot a vegan/AR dog owner from a distance by body language alone.

  84. #84 Thom Denick
    February 9, 2012

    Regardless of PCRM’s credibility (which is subjective, but appears to be about equal with PETA, which is not a scientifically-respected group), they have an unconcealed goal of stopping all animal testing. This is an extremist position that does not make them a neutral party in this discussion. Dr. O’Leary’s experiments have not been condemned by any neutral party as far as I’m aware. Even if they have been, does that justify Camille’s support of snuff fantasies about him? I would contend anyone who promotes such a disgusting fantasy in the way she did against a real-live person, has demonstrated that “unhinged” is a gentle word for their mental stability.

  85. #85 Wow
    February 9, 2012

    “It’s hard to look tough and bully someone who can beat the crap out of you.

    Posted by: ArtK ”

    So you approve of violence escalation, Art? Or only for the right people?

  86. #86 Wow
    February 9, 2012

    “That sounds like an animal rights wingnut tactic. No has to “know” someone personally to make an obvious assumption about their character

    Posted by: Science Mom ”

    Then maybe this animal rights character didn’t need to know and work in the laboratory to “know” about the character of one of the students working there, and was right in their actions?

    Here’s how an activist can become objectively wrong:

    1) Go through the system. What chance would this woman have getting on the IRB or whatever as the outside person? Nil.

    2) Prosetylize. But you all here have managed to show that you will defend your right to call her nuts because she’s “against all animal testing”, even though you don’t actually KNOW her. So natch on that one.

    3) Action.

    And then YOU come along, first view, see the Action step and jump straight to the conclusion that she’s a nutter because she’s taking direct action that you know should have been done a different way first. Unbeknownst to you, these different ways were tried, but were not newsworthy, therefore invisible.

    Soap box
    Ballot box
    Bullet box

    isn’t it? But you don’t go to the part to hear the soapbox, and they’re all nutters anyway. And you all vote, but you don’t watch everyone voting.

    And then you wonder why the bullet box is opened.

    It was the first time you noticed.

    She didn’t kill anyone. She may be extreme, but there are far more extremists who love hurting animals because they can’t call the police.

  87. #87 Science Mom
    February 9, 2012

    your tests will never ever benefit me or anyone. that is another lie you people tell yourselves. Animals and humans react differently to substances and some drugs are carcinogenic in humans but not in animals, or vice-versa.

    You sure about that idiot? I don’t test drugs or substances, I am an infectious disease scientist who finds and characterises pathogens and also designs detection assays. Snotty little entitled brats like you are too dim to realise the benefits you do reap from animal testing.

    @ Wow, zip it. Of course someone like Marino couldn’t get on an IACUC committee because she’s a whackjob. Don’t like the label? Don’t play the part. The rest of your screed is incoherent wankery.

  88. #88 Lawrence
    February 9, 2012

    @Wow – there is a huge difference between people that abuse animals (animal hoarders, people who get their kicks from abusing animals, etc) & those researchers that utilize animals in scientific processes.

    In this particular case, this individual’s tactics do border on outright incitement to violence – and go far beyond the pale of protests to outright physical threats on individuals and their families.

    These tactics have no place in civil society – and this applies to any flavor of protest position, whether it be anti-government (militias), anti-abortion (shoot the doctors), or anyone else that advocates violence as a means of supporting change.

  89. #89 Wow
    February 9, 2012

    “zip it.”

    Aawww. So nice. I could much more validly demand you zip it you arrogant nutjob.

    “Of course someone like Marino couldn’t get on an IACUC committee because she’s a whackjob.”

    Which you know because you know her so well.

    Tell me was she born a whackjob? At what point did she become one? Why?

    Even when someone goes ballistic, there’s usually a cause, but you don’t care, do you. You prefer some humans over other humans.

  90. #90 Drivebyposter
    February 9, 2012

    Soap box
    Ballot box
    Bullet box

    How long do I have to disagree with you before I’m allowed to threaten to kill your children? I’m just itching to track down the school they go to and at what times they are most likely to be home alone.

    So you approve of violence escalation, Art? Or only for the right people?

    What I got from it was that “animal rights” groups attack soft targets like random people wearing fur instead of bikers because bikers could probably kicks the asses of “animal rights” people. And no one would feel sympathy for them and no one could see them as having achieved even very skewed goals if they were to get beaten to a pulp.

  91. #91 Anton P. Nym
    February 9, 2012

    @86: She didn’t kill anyone.

    Not yet, admittedly. She certainly has, however, attempted to incite others to do so, or at least to do harm on her behalf; that’s a crime, and has been for generations.

    — Steve

  92. #92 Dianne
    February 9, 2012

    Nature manages itself through size of habitat, availability of food and water, natural predators, severe weather conditions.

    Humans are natural predators. Check your teeth some time if you don’t believe me. Not to mention that humans are part of nature. Humans expanding their habitat is just as natural as any other new species moving into an area-and just as destructive. The difference is that people can understand the consequences of their actions and try to limit the damage done. And, when people follow their natural instinct to act as predators, we can attempt to cause as little pain and distress to the hunted animal as possible. Unlike, say, great cats who often start eating an animal that has been disabled but is not yet dead.

    “Nature managing itself” means animals starving, freezing, dying of dehydration, being eaten alive, being torn apart by rivals in the mating game, etc. Nature isn’t nice and romanticizing nature while declaring everything humans do to be evil is just silly.

  93. #93 Wow
    February 9, 2012

    “there is a huge difference between people that abuse animals (animal hoarders, people who get their kicks from abusing animals”

    I’m afraid this little insight is not the blinding flash of revelation you think it might be.

    Could you, for example, show me where I said that animal testers WERE people who got kicks out of abusing animals?

    Hint: doesn’t exist.

    Additionally, someone who has seen such abusive people may jump to the same conclusions as science mom: anyone doing animal experiments MUST be a lunatic!

    Ergo, “zip it: she’s doing the right thing”.

  94. #94 Wow
    February 9, 2012

    “@86: She didn’t kill anyone.

    Not yet, admittedly”

    See how grudgingly this is “given” her?

    Pathetic.

    YOU haven’t killed anyone. Not yet, admittedly. But we should be afraid of nutters who haven’t killed anyone *yet*…

  95. #95 PB
    February 9, 2012

    Alafair #64 “The development of life saving protease inhibitors was delayed by misleading monkey data. Referring to efforts to develop an AIDS vaccine, leading AIDS researcher Dr. Mark Feinberg stated: “What good does it do you to test something in a monkey? You find five or six years from now that it works in the monkey, and then you test it in humans and you realize that humans behave totally differently from monkeys, so you’ve wasted five years”.

    The development of protease inhibitors was not delayed by animal studies, though that is a lie that many animal rights activists like to repeat, and I believe that it was based on a scientists comments about many candidate protease inhibitors failing toxicity, PK or oral bioavailability evaluations (which is what they are for)

    You are correct that in vitro analysis of anti-HIV activity in human cell culture was key to the development of these drugs (nobody disputes this), but evaluation in animals was also crucial, as this extract from a paper (PMCID: PMC43730) on the development of Indinavir/Crixivan/L-735,524, the protease inhibitor which transformed the treatment of HIV as part of HAART, shows:

    “The most important attribute of L-735,524 is its apparent oral bioavailability in animal models when given in clinically acceptable formulations. The compound’s bioavailability when delivered as a citric acid solution or as a solid suspension ranged from 10% to 70%, depending on the individual animal and species. These values are significantly better than those we have observed with previously reported inhibitors (unpublished data). This characteristic, along with L-735,524′s apparently low plasma protein binding, suggests that the compound can be effectively delivered to humans in a convenient oral formulation. Phase I human studies with such a formulation should assess the inhibitor’s safety, pharmacokinetics, and in vivo antiviral activity.” As for preventing vertical transmission of HIV, the fact that the NEJM article reporting the first clinical trial of prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV cites evidence from animal studies in its introduction is telling (PMID: 7935654), and of course since then studies – particularly those of SIV transmission in monkeys – have played an important role in developing new PEP regimes. Development of vaccines against HIV has been slow because it is simply a very difficult task, and there has been significant progress recently in identifying the key requirements of an effective virus, especially with the focus switching back to the use of stringent SIV strains that mimic most closely the biology of the more common HIV strains.

    Also I suspect that your quote from Dr. Feinberg is a good example of what we call “Quote mining” as Dr. Feinberg has published dozens of studies involving he use of SIV/monkey models since he made that statement in 2007, the most recent in May 2011 (PubMed: 21625590). This suggests to me that there is a lot missing from what you quoted, and it certainly wouldn’t be the first time that an animal rights believer used selective quotation to misrepresent a scientist’s views.

  96. #96 Wow
    February 9, 2012

    “Humans are natural predators. Check your teeth some time”

    I did.

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

    Or are cows natural grass hunters?

    PS animals STILL starve, freeze and so on. Even when we hunt them. So blaming nature for being mean isn’t carte blanche for us to do it.

  97. #97 Science Mom
    February 9, 2012

    “Of course someone like Marino couldn’t get on an IACUC committee because she’s a whackjob.”

    Which you know because you know her so well.

    Tell me was she born a whackjob? At what point did she become one? Why?

    Even when someone goes ballistic, there’s usually a cause, but you don’t care, do you. You prefer some humans over other humans.

    Your arguments are pathetically specious as Marino puts her craxxy out there for all to see. It doesn’t matter how or why she went down this path or do you wish to plead insanity by special circumstances for her? I would prefer most humans over the likes of her, yes. She’s a dangerous, albeit cowardly zealot and I’m glad to see pushback against her and her lot.

  98. #98 Lawrence
    February 9, 2012

    @Wow – no one has said that “you’ve” said those things. In fact, if you read the materials available and even this individual’s own website, it is plainly visible that she does feel that way about anyone involved in research involving animals – and saying otherwise is a blantant lie.

    And since she does advocate violence against specific individuals and supports writings that highlight the “fictional” killing of researchers, it doesn’t take a genius to see exactly where she stands.

  99. #99 Vicki
    February 9, 2012

    Alafair–

    A fair amount does work cross-species. A few years ago, researchers studying diseases in sheep were glad to be able to look at results in a model species with a fully sequenced genome. The model species? Homo sapiens. My cat was cured of a serious infection using amoxicillin, a drug that was developed for use in humans. That’s in addition to things that work from mice, or rats, to humans.

    Yes, you don’t go directly from “this works in mice” to “release widely for human use,” because not everything is the same: sometimes a medicine that works in one doesn’t work, or isn’t safe, in the other. So after the animal trials there are small-scale trials in human patients. But it’s still a very important step.

    If you’re sure that no animal testing will ever benefit you, I assume that you have sworn never to use any medication or other treatment that has been tested in animals, and that you make a point of always doing the research to check that, rather than accepting a prescription from your doctor if you’re sick. Please do not go out in public while infected.

  100. #100 Interrobang
    February 9, 2012

    Before it comes up, I’d just like to say that although the goal of modelling biological systems with computers is great, in order to do the kind of modelling that would more or less exactly (subject to essentially quantum-physics level differences) model even one subsystem of the human body, we’d not only have to completely understand all the interactions down to the atomic level, but we’d also have to have the computing power to run that simulation, multiple times (to account for non-deterministic effects).

    So far, that’s not anywhere close to being doable, both on the knowledge side and the technology side. And before someone jumps in here saying that it should be easy to do because the simulation really doesn’t have to be that deep, I’m going to say yes it does, and you’re a bloody idiot if you think somehow you’ll magically get better< information from using an inexact computer model (which will necessarily have big gaps in its execution due to ignorance) over an inexact animal model (which will at least factor in molecular and sub-molecular interactions).

    Sheeit, I’m not even a scientist and even I can see that.

  101. #101 Wow
    February 9, 2012

    “in order to do the kind of modelling that would more or less exactly”

    I’m not asking for more or less exactly. We don’t exactly model climate or weather. But we don’t decide to just seed rainstorms and hope for the best.

    So why are you painting a position you KNOW impossible?

    It’s like the climate deniers who insist on 100% proof that $THIS_EVENT was caused solely by AGW.

    “no one has said that “you’ve” said those things”

    Then you’re creating a strawman. Stop it.

    Only unscientific nutters do that when there’s absolutely no need and it’s obvious they’ll get caught at it.

    “it is plainly visible that she does feel that way about anyone involved in research involving animals”

    And if only she got to know them properly before making a judgement, she’d know she was wrong about them?

    I refer the right honourable gentleman to post 56.

    Sounds like Science Mom is a frothing lunatic, just as bad as the animal rights nutjobs she whines about.

  102. #102 Wow
    February 9, 2012

    “Your arguments are pathetically specious as Marino puts her craxxy out there for all to see.”

    And you’ve put your crazy out there for all to see.

    You rightwing nutjob.

    But you’re unable to see the irony there, aren’t you.

  103. #103 Lawrence
    February 9, 2012

    @Wow – amazing how you can compare what ScienceMom posted with the open call for the hunting down and harming of researchers & their families…..

  104. #104 Shay
    February 9, 2012

    @Lawrence — but calling someone a sorry little git is EXACTLY the same as suggesting they be tortured to death. I’m surprised you can’t see that.

  105. #105 JohnV
    February 9, 2012

    @rfranklin

    “Do you ever stop to think what motivates aras?”

    Misanthropy?

    That’s the first thing that comes to mind as to why people would place greater importance over the perceived suffering of non-human animals over the demonstrable suffering of humans, especially since at least some of the aras are so concerned that they will threaten and harass children.

  106. #106 Science Mom
    February 9, 2012

    And if only she got to know them properly before making a judgement, she’d know she was wrong about them?

    I refer the right honourable gentleman to post 56.

    Sounds like Science Mom is a frothing lunatic, just as bad as the animal rights nutjobs she whines about.

    What’s to get to know? Marino all warm and fuzzy and we’d somehow overlook her death threats and incites of torture? I loathe her kind and you’re no better as her apologist so don’t think for a second you have some moral high ground here. And rightwing? You really are a dumbass.

  107. #107 Wow
    February 9, 2012

    “That’s the first thing that comes to mind as to why people would place greater importance over the perceived suffering of non-human animals”

    The God Squad don’t believe that animals feel pain either, it just *looks* like they feel pain.

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/11/william_lane_craig_and_the_pro.php

    Drawing parallels…

    PS NonScience Mom, who cares. You’ve shown your batsh*t crazy already.

  108. #108 Mu
    February 9, 2012

    Wow@86 She didn’t kill anyone.
    Neither did Charles Manson. Doesn’t serve as a proof of sanity or acceptability of their respective goals.

  109. #109 BB
    February 9, 2012

    Is Marino also banned from WSU-affiliated hospitals? Hope so.

  110. #110 Max
    February 9, 2012

    “YOU haven’t killed anyone. Not yet, admittedly. But we should be afraid of nutters who haven’t killed anyone *yet*…”

    If said person threatens violence or actively incites others, then yes there is cause for concern. How obtuse can you be?

    “”Humans are natural predators. Check your teeth some time”

    I did.”

    And yet all you notice are the molars? The mirror, you’re using it wrong.

    “Or are cows natural grass hunters?”

    Actually they are. There digestive tracts, furthermore, are specially adapted for their natural prey. What point did you think you were making?

    “PS animals STILL starve, freeze and so on. Even when we hunt them.”

    But clearly not in the same numbers.

    “So blaming nature for being mean isn’t carte blanche for us to do it.”

    Starvation is a far worse death than being shot. The argument is not that nature is mean so we can be. The argument is that it is more humane to die quickly. Honestly, how did you miss this?

  111. #111 Wow
    February 9, 2012

    “amazing how you can compare what ScienceMom posted with the open call for the hunting down and harming of researchers & their families”

    Amazing how you can construct a strawman so quickly from nowhere…

    (and learn how to use an elipsis, please)

    No, I’m comparing what NonScienceMorMom said about how you don’t have to “know” people to know what they’re like with your demand that she get to “know” people in labs.

    But I guess playing the martyr is always easiest for those who have dogma and belief alone to comfort themselves in their ignorance.

  112. #112 JohnV
    February 9, 2012

    Its possible I’m misunderstanding you, Wow, but in case I’m not, can you show me where I said animals don’t feel pain?

  113. #113 kruuth
    February 9, 2012

    Alafair:

    I eat what I shoot. Period. My hunting is limited to the deer I am legally allowed to take each year, and the dangerous, crop-destroying boars that ravage Florida.

    As far as your comment that humans and animals behave differently, keep in mind that insulin is grown in pigs, and most contemporary medical procedures are performed on animals first because of their similar physiology.

    Yes, nature does do things like predation, but when you let the balance shift you get predators like mountain lions, wolves, etc that not only hunt deer, but are known to go after people when the pickings get too slim. If I recall this was the case earlier this week when a baby was taken by a mountain lion.

    Please try to actually know what you’re talking about before you make these obviously uninformed statements. As for how I sleep, I sleep quite well. Last night I had venison in fact.

  114. #114 Science Mom
    February 9, 2012

    @Wow – amazing how you can compare what ScienceMom posted with the open call for the hunting down and harming of researchers & their families…..

    @Lawrence — but calling someone a sorry little git is EXACTLY the same as suggesting they be tortured to death. I’m surprised you can’t see that.

    But but but Lawrence and Shay, we don’t knoooow her waaaaah. If only we knew her, we’d surely see she isn’t a psychopathic terrorist who cowardly targets students and children.

  115. #115 Wow
    February 9, 2012

    “can you show me where I said animals don’t feel pain?”

    Yup, no probs:

    “the perceived suffering of non-human animals”

  116. #116 Shay
    February 9, 2012

    Wow@113 — English isn’t your first language, is it?

  117. #117 JohnV
    February 9, 2012

    Oh I see the confusion. You don’t know what perceived means. If only all our differences could be settled by using a dictionary :)

  118. #118 Science Mom
    February 9, 2012

    “amazing how you can compare what ScienceMom posted with the open call for the hunting down and harming of researchers & their families”

    Amazing how you can construct a strawman so quickly from nowhere…

    (and learn how to use an elipsis, please)

    No, I’m comparing what NonScienceMorMom said about how you don’t have to “know” people to know what they’re like with your demand that she get to “know” people in labs.

    But I guess playing the martyr is always easiest for those who have dogma and belief alone to comfort themselves in their ignorance.

    What a load of bollocks; you’ve been mewling for several posts now how I shouldn’t characterise Marino because I don’t know her. And since your arguments fall short of anything resembling higher order thinking, you have to try and mock my UN? With something so hilariously inept and inaccurate no less.

    “can you show me where I said animals don’t feel pain?”

    Yup, no probs:

    “the perceived suffering of non-human animals”

    Do yourself a favour and sit on your hands, your reading comprehension is embarrassing.

  119. #119 Anton P. Nym
    February 9, 2012

    @ Wow (#94)YOU haven’t killed anyone. Not yet, admittedly. But we should be afraid of nutters who haven’t killed anyone *yet*…

    I also haven’t threatened physical harm to anyone. Yet.

    Your Dear Leader has. That’s the difference; now, if I’d said that I’d come after you and your mother if any animal researcher came to harm and publically called on others to do the same, then you might have some grounds for complaining about hypocrisy on my part.

    — Steve

  120. #120 Wow
    February 9, 2012

    “I also haven’t threatened physical harm to anyone. Yet.”

    Indeed.

    And I find that VERY suspicious!

    Ever seen 12 Angry Men?5

    “Oh I see the confusion. You don’t know what perceived means.”

    Yup, it’s used by that religionista too to show that animals don’t REALLY feel pain. It just looks like it.

    It’s not REALLY pain, it just LOOKS like it!

    Or why else did you put:

    “the perceived suffering of non-human animals … the demonstrable suffering of humans”

    If you meant the same thing both times?

    Or maybe you just think that using words too many times wears them out?

  121. #121 Mu
    February 9, 2012

    Wow, we know that animals feel pain. We’ve seen the video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdCC-XEYt-Q
    BTW which one do you shoot to end the suffering there, the buffalo or the hyenas?

  122. #122 Wow
    February 9, 2012

    “Wow, we know that animals feel pain.”

    Then the sentence should have been:

    “the demonstrable suffering of non-human animals … the demonstrable suffering of humans”

    So why wasn’t it?

  123. #123 Mu
    February 9, 2012

    Sorry for the wrong choice of words, now please address the question once you’re done with the English lesson.

  124. #124 Wow
    February 9, 2012

    Shay@115 — Thought isn’t your thing, is it. That grey goop’s just for cooling the blood. YOU use your gut!

    * I try not to think with my gut. If I’m serious about understanding the world, thinking with anything besides my brain, as tempting as that might be, is likely to get me into trouble. Really, it’s okay to reserve judgment until the evidence is in.
    o Ch. 11 : The Dragon in My Garage, p. 180

  125. #125 Wow
    February 9, 2012

    “now please address the question”

    What question?

    All you’ve managed to do is beg or avoid it.

    Or is thinking a bit beyond your reach too? I can wait a while whilst you go and do some heavy thinking. But please apply the brain before you blurt out what your guts tell you.

  126. #126 Wow
    February 9, 2012

    From the mouth of PZ:

    As is usual upon reading any argument by William Lane Craig, I find myself wondering if we shouldn’t, in the name of common decency, have him locked up or in some way isolated from the sane human population. He makes bad arguments, he makes dishonest arguments, and he seems opportunistically willing to sacrifice moral reasoning on the altar of his barbarian god.

    How can anyone who has known a dog deny that they are capable of perceiving pain in fairly complex ways?

    But it really is a continuum.

    ++++

    And the words used to make PZ want this person locked up for the moral health of the world?

    “Thus, amazingly, even though animals may experience pain, they are not aware of being in pain. God in His mercy has apparently spared animals the awareness of pain.”

    The appearance of pain. Not actual pain.

    Having read words about “perceived pain of nonhuman animals” and “demonstrable pain of humans”, upon the lips of someone working at, say, Huntingon Life Sciences, what do you think that person would be getting up to in there?

    Do you think they’ll care one whit about the mere perceived pain of animals in the search for a cure for the demonstrable pain of humans?

    Words misused (if they ARE being misused: I doubt it myself) create the problem YOU demand others are the cause of. Refusing YOUR role in the problem and its continuance.

  127. #127 Shay
    February 9, 2012

    Words misused (if they ARE being misused: I doubt it myself) create the problem YOU demand others are the cause of. Refusing YOUR role in the problem and its continuance.
    WFT?

    So, English is not your first language. Thanks for the confirmation, although everyone guessed that when you so thoroughly misinterpreted JohnV’s initial post.

  128. #128 Lawrence
    February 9, 2012

    @Wow – I am still confused as to how you can compare the words that Marino herself has spoken or written (as referenced in Orac’s post above) to anything that has been written by the commenters here?

    You seem to have no problem with Marino’s snuff fantasies, active advocating of violence, and open harrassment of not just researchers, but their familes as well – but you have a problem with us having the opinion, that based on Marino’s own words and actions, that she is a little nuts?

    Your perception of reality is quite warped…..

  129. #129 Wow
    February 9, 2012

    I am still confused as to how you get that I’m comparing the words Marino has spoken to anything others have written here.

    What you should be confused about is how you’re being hypocritical.

    You don’t know why or how or under what circumstances Marino did what she did. There’s NO NEED and, in fact, you assert that it’s a nutjob whinge that it be necessary to know people before passing judgement.

    But that it’s HER fault for not knowing the people working in the labs, since she should know that the people working there are actually nice and none of them dismissive of animal welfare.

    Hypocrites.

  130. #130 Wow
    February 9, 2012

    “You seem to have no problem with Marino’s snuff fantasies”

    You seem to have a problem with other people’s thoughts.

    *I* have no problem with people being wrong.

    I *do* have a problem with ridiculous self-justification being used in place of actual argument and rationality.

  131. #131 kruuth
    February 9, 2012

    Well this has devolved into a shouting match.

  132. #132 Wow
    February 9, 2012

    Shay, tell your gut to stop talking and use your brain.

    If it’s at all possible.

    You’re as batsh*t crazy as NonScienceMorMom.

  133. #133 Wow
    February 9, 2012

    Well this has devolved into a shouting match.

    Posted by: kruuth | February 9, 2012 11:32 AM

    +++

    Devolved???

    +++

    Obligatory rhetorical question about why these creeps target scientists and students rather than, say, hunters.

    Posted by: Andreas Johansson | February 8, 2012 5:19 AM

  134. #134 Lawrence
    February 9, 2012

    No longer worth my time trying to get any type of reasoned response from Wow…..

  135. #135 Mike Crichton
    February 9, 2012

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

    To be more accurate, you should say “Molars adapted for crushing and grinding don’t happen on cats or dogs.” Carnivore molars are adapted to shearing, but they are still molars.

    But that quibble aside, pig molars are similar enough to human that forensic dentists can easily mistake one for the other, and pigs are omnivores. So you’re still wrong.

  136. #136 Wow
    February 9, 2012

    Yup, creationists do that one too.

    Just look at AMC’s methodology for example.

  137. #137 Calli Arcale
    February 9, 2012

    Wow, as an English major, I’d like to comment on your objection to “perceived”. Yes, it can be used to imply that the pain is not real. However, you are confusing who is being spoken of and consequently misunderstanding the passage.

    Animals definitely feel pain. Not all of it is perceptible to us, and in fact it is very easy (and a major problem for veterinarians) for humans to perceive more or less pain than the animals is really experiencing. It’s important to remember that this goes both ways; you can perceive more pain than is really present, and you can perceive less. Though note that it’s not *that* much easier to gauge human pain; see also this hilarious link for a good laugh (don’t worry, it’s about human pain, not animal):
    http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/02/boyfriend-doesnt-have-ebola-probably.html
    On a less amusing note, this is also true of infants; kids in NICUs probably endure a great deal more pain than we realize.

    Now, with that out of the way, let’s look at the original sentence again:
    That’s the first thing that comes to mind as to why people would place greater importance over the perceived suffering of non-human animals over the demonstrable suffering of humans, especially since at least some of the aras are so concerned that they will threaten and harass children.

    It is difficult to accurately measure how much animals suffer from any given thing; you can’t ask them to fill out a survey, after all. So we must go only on perceived pain, and this is not always accurate. In the case of some activists, who attack people whose work they aren’t even really familiar with, they don’t really have any idea how much the animals are suffering. Yet they perceive the animals to be suffering all the same. Meanwhile, it cannot have escaped their notice that actual humans suffer; it is *demonstrably* true that humans are suffering. In fact, people like Marino are not only okay with that, they would like to inflict suffering upon humans, or see suffering inflicted, and they do not really mind if it is grotesquely out of proportion to what they believe is being done to animals (never mind whether their perception of animal suffering is even accurate).

    So the charge is valid: they care more about perceived and unconfirmed suffering of animals than they do about demonstrated suffering of humans. How much they *think* animals suffer is more important to them than how much they *know* humans are suffering.

    >Or maybe you just think that using words too many times wears them out?

    Stylistically, that is actually a good argument — a writer should avoid overusing a word, as it makes the text bland. That’s not what’s going on here, though.

  138. #138 Wow
    February 9, 2012

    zeal
       /zil/ Show Spelled[zeel] Show IPA
    noun
    fervor for a person, cause, or object; eager desire or endeavor; enthusiastic diligence; ardor.

    So why is zealot apparently always a bad thing to be?

  139. #139 Mike Crichton
    February 9, 2012

    Let’s start over Wow. Please answer this simple question: What do you, PERSONALLY, think about Marino’s intimidation tactics, and her open approval for outright threats of violence? Approve, disapprove, disapprove-but-use-weasel-words-to-express-tacit-approval, none-of-the-above?

  140. #140 Wow
    February 9, 2012

    “Please answer this simple question”

    Well, it’s the first time the question has come up. Answer: Disapprove. Why did you need to ask?

    Now, answer this simple question:

    Why is unthinking bigotry OK when, say, ScienceMom does it, but not when Marino does?

  141. #141 Melissa G
    February 9, 2012

    Yay! I love it when new trolls show up! Somebody pass me the popcorn. :)

  142. #142 Wow
    February 9, 2012

    From my first post, #27, Mike:

    There are shades of crazy. She’s only quite mad, not entirely bonkers loony.

    I have no *pity* or *sympathy* for someone who doesn’t care about the law to be tromped by someone else who doesn’t care about the law.

    Scaring people is not terrible, but is still bad. You can get over fear. You can’t get over dead.

    ++++

    So, again, why did you have to ask your plain question? It had already been answered.

    Or was the mere fact I wasn’t howling for blood like the rest of you enough to convince you that I MUST be for human cruelty?

  143. #143 Wow
    February 9, 2012

    “Posted by: Melissa G | February 9, 2012 12:08 PM”

    Hmmm.

    So, Orac is a troll?

    After all, he takes people to task over their words. The tagline is even:

    “A statement of fact cannot be insolent.”

    But I suppose it’s just plain EASIER to whine “Troll!” when you KNOW you’re right, you just don’t know why.

  144. #144 Lawrence
    February 9, 2012

    So WoW is a disengenuous tone troll…..interesting.

  145. #145 Chemmomo
    February 9, 2012

    Wow:

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

    Do ruminants have canines? You know, those teeth in the front of your mouth, just outside of your front four incisors, named after . . . dogs! Even human babies have those – they generally come in just after the first 4 molars do (molars around age 1, canines 14-16 mos).

    Hmmmm.

  146. #146 Wow
    February 9, 2012

    “Do ruminants have canines?”

    They have molars. Like we do.

    Duh.

  147. #147 Wow
    February 9, 2012

    “Posted by: Lawrence | February 9, 2012 12:21 PM”

    Lawrence, please don’t use words you don’t understand.

    Get an adult to help you.

    A ‘tone troll’ is like a concern troll, but is especially concerned about the lack of civility in the discourse. The tone troll wants everyone to be nice.

    Tone Trolling The tone troll is wrong when he conflates civility with humaneness. It is quite possible to mock, tease, deride, vex “with all due respects.”

    Tone Trolls are the language puritans of the blog world. They will studiously avoid addressing the substantive issues of an argument,

    Are the first few definitions I could find of tone troll.

    Where, EXACTLY, do they fit with what I say?

    Now, they DO fit with your latest comment and Melissa’s. Both attempting to berate someone for YOUR definition of intemperate language.

  148. #148 Melissa G
    February 9, 2012

    Oh, I’m not attempting to berate you, Wow. On the contrary, I’d love for you to keep talking.

  149. #149 Wow
    February 9, 2012

    85 “It’s hard to look tough and bully someone who can beat the crap out of you.

    Posted by: ArtK ”

    So you approve of violence escalation, Art? Or only for the right people?

    Posted by: Wow | February 9, 2012 7:20 AM

    +++

    No Answer.

    +++

    Soap box
    Ballot box
    Bullet box

    isn’t it? But you don’t go to the part to hear the soapbox, and they’re all nutters anyway. And you all vote, but you don’t watch everyone voting.

    And then you wonder why the bullet box is opened.

    It was the first time you noticed.

    She didn’t kill anyone. She may be extreme, but there are far more extremists who love hurting animals because they can’t call the police.

    Posted by: Wow | February 9, 2012 7:29 AM

    +++

    Answer: Zip it.

    +++

    Tell me was she born a whackjob? At what point did she become one? Why?

    Even when someone goes ballistic, there’s usually a cause, but you don’t care, do you. You prefer some humans over other humans.

    Posted by: Wow | February 9, 2012 8:41 AM

    +++

    Answer: None

    +++

    Or are cows natural grass hunters?

    PS animals STILL starve, freeze and so on. Even when we hunt them. So blaming nature for being mean isn’t carte blanche for us to do it.

    +++

    Answer: We have canines!!!

    Nonanswer.

    +++

    I’m not asking for more or less exactly. We don’t exactly model climate or weather. But we don’t decide to just seed rainstorms and hope for the best.

    So why are you painting a position you KNOW impossible?

    +++

    Answer: None

    +++

    And if only she got to know them properly before making a judgement, she’d know she was wrong about them?

    Posted by: Wow | February 9, 2012 9:53 AM

    +++

    Answer: None.

    +++

  150. #150 Lawrence
    February 9, 2012

    @wow – you’ve actually “said” very little.

  151. #151 Wow
    February 9, 2012

    “On the contrary, I’d love for you to keep talking.

    Posted by: Melissa G | February 9, 2012 12:42 PM”

    See, Lawrence, this is trolling.

    Note also that this hair brained blond doesn’t think “Troll” is a nasty thing to call someone.

  152. #152 Wow
    February 9, 2012

    “you’ve actually “said” very little.

    Posted by: Lawrence | February 9, 2012 12:45 PM”

    A gosh darned more than you have, Larry.

    That post being a prime example.

    Note how you’re matching this definition:

    Tone Trolls are the language puritans of the blog world. They will studiously avoid addressing the substantive issues of an argument,

  153. #153 Mike Crichton
    February 9, 2012

    For whatever reason, my previous comment never posted, so anyway: Damn near all mammals have molars, the difference is some are specialized for grinding, some for shearing, and some, like ours, are relatively unspecialized. The non-primates with molars most similar to ours (to the point that forensic anthropologists often confuse them for human) are pigs. And guess what? Pigs are OMNIVORES.

    Also, next question Wow: Is your disapproval for Marino’s words greater or lesser than your disapproval for the posters here?

  154. #154 Wow
    February 9, 2012

    “disapprove-but-use-weasel-words-to-express-tacit-approval, none-of-the-above?

    Posted by: Mike Crichton | February 9, 2012 12:01 PM”

    So you can’t say anything mike ‘cos all you have are weasel words to avoid dumping yourself right in the cack?

    Or do you only ask the questions, like this guy:

    http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29631/

  155. #155 Johnny
    February 9, 2012

    But you all here have managed to show that you will defend your right to call her nuts because she’s “against all animal testing”, even though you don’t actually KNOW her.

    I don’t know her, true, but I can read her words. Trust me, being “against all animal testing” isn’t what makes me think she’s nuts.

    From “Interview With an Animal Activist: Camille Marino”
    http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/6322320327/interview-with-an-animal-activist-camille-marino

    Does this mean you support the killing of animal abusers?

    Yes, I do.

    And there is this call for what I guess are suicide bombers

    I can tell you that some activists have expressed to me a desire to end their lives because they are so overwhelmed and frustrated. My only response is that if one is going to end their own suffering, it would be an admirable act if they took as many abusers as possible with them.

    It’s only a matter of time.

  156. #156 Science Mom
    February 9, 2012

    Or is thinking a bit beyond your reach too? I can wait a while whilst you go and do some heavy thinking. But please apply the brain before you blurt out what your guts tell you.

    Oh goody, it’s the Blackheart of animal rights zealots. An idiot who attributes rightwing, fundy christian or LDS to anyone who disagrees with him/her. If you disagree with Marino’s tactics then why are you arguing? It’s either excruciating concern trolling or thinly-veiled sympathy for her objectives whilst you sit back and let the others do the dirty work for you. Call it what you will but normal, rational sane compassionate people do not threaten vivid torture of vivisectionists and their families.

  157. #157 Wow
    February 9, 2012

    “I don’t know her, true, but I can read her words.”

    And I can read John V’s words. “the perceived suffering of non-human animals over the demonstrable suffering of humans”.

    Apparently you can’t.

    You apparently can’t read any words in post 86.

    Since YOU only noticed her words when they were abhorrent to you, how do you know where they come from?

    To someone sitting outside, the Russian Revolution was just a bunch of people murdering and looting that of the rich people in power.

    Only when you see the way suppression of the people do you decide they’re NOT just rabid anarchists who like killing and looting is if you look at what happened.

    But you’re just far more COMFORTABLE grudgingly accepting she hasn’t killed anyone YET.

    Just like you.

    Or have you murdered people already, Johnny?

  158. #158 Wow
    February 9, 2012

    I don’t discuss rationality with lunatics, mom.

  159. #159 Mu
    February 9, 2012

    But you’re just far more COMFORTABLE grudgingly accepting she hasn’t killed anyone YET.
    I don’t think comfortable is a word anybody sane would use to describe their feelings about Camille. Mainly because the only thing I’m accepting is that she hasn’t admitted killing anyone, and not for lack of trying.

  160. #160 Science Mom
    February 9, 2012

    I don’t discuss rationality with lunatics, mom.

    Oh poor precious snowflake; there has been little rationality that you have managed to display. I bet it gets tiresome talking out of both sides of your flappy mouth and defend an indefensible person whilst claiming you’re not.

  161. #161 Wow
    February 9, 2012

    “I don’t think comfortable is a word anybody sane would use to describe their feelings about Camille”

    Of course a SANE person wouldn’t pretend another conversation occurring only in their own head…

  162. #162 Composer99
    February 9, 2012

    Wow @155:

    Look in the mirror. Then kindly stop spamming the thread.

  163. #163 JGC
    February 9, 2012

    Wow, it’s really this simple: marino’s own words and actions are of themselves sufficient for a reasonable person to conclude she is not rational with respect to the issue of the use of animal models in research.

    How she came to this point–where she’d orchestrate the harrassment of undergraduate students with the intent to drive them from their chosen field of instruction, that she’d publish the personal information of scientists who conduct research using animal models coupled with explicit warnings they and their families will suffer if they do not discontinue that research, that she’d indicate she would love to see video footage of one such researcher being tortured and killed–is of little import. We really don’t need to know her on some more personal level to form an informed opinion re: her sanity (or more accurately, her lack there-of).

  164. #164 Shay
    February 9, 2012

    @Composer: yes, he/she/it is spamming. But keeping up with the non-sequiturs and faulty English is diverting. Is there a bingo for this?

  165. #165 Drivebyposter
    February 9, 2012

    @Wow. You seem to want people to pay attention to you, but you say shit like this

    Soap box
    Ballot box
    Bullet box
    isn’t it? But you don’t go to the part to hear the soapbox, and they’re all nutters anyway. And you all vote, but you don’t watch everyone voting.
    And then you wonder why the bullet box is opened.
    It was the first time you noticed.
    She didn’t kill anyone. She may be extreme, but there are far more extremists who love hurting animals because they can’t call the police.

    translation: “Animal rights” activists are ignored. Therefore they are allowed to victimize people. Those people earned it.”

    You’re endorsing terrorism. Why are we supposed to talk to you again?

  166. #166 Dianne
    February 9, 2012

    I’d like to join you in mocking wow, but there’s so little content in his/her/its posts that I can’t find anything to say about them. Orac, you need a better class of trolls.

  167. #167 Vicki
    February 9, 2012

    To put it in plain English, on the off chance Wow is genuinely confused: what people are saying is, not that escalating violence is acceptable, but that bullies choose targets who they think won’t fight back. When did that concept–that bullies choose targets they are confident of dominating, not some value of a “fair fight”–become obscure?

  168. #168 sophia8
    February 9, 2012

    Wow, you’ve finally said you “disapprove” of Marino; now I’m puzzled as to why you’re still arguing so vehemently with us. Can’t you concede that we may have a point in seeing Marino as ‘unhinged’?
    Also, you’ve still to answer why ARAs don’t go after hunters or real animal abusers (surely you followed the link that I gave?) Especially the latter, seeing as they don’t have the police or public sympathy on their side.

  169. #169 Johnny
    February 9, 2012

    Mu @ 156 and JGC @160 nailed it while I was out in the big room – Marino’s words are enough to convince me she’s batshit crazy, and a danger to my fellow humans.

    Anyone who would incite someone to kill others while committing a suicidal act, be they kamikaze or Osama Bin Ladin, is particularly despicable in my opinion.

    And no, I haven’t murdered any one yet, and really have no plan to. But I have killed my own lunch on several occasions, and plan to again.

  170. #170 Melissa G
    February 9, 2012

    “On the contrary, I’d love for you to keep talking.

    Posted by: Melissa G | February 9, 2012 12:42 PM”

    See, Lawrence, this is trolling.

    Note also that this hair brained blond doesn’t think “Troll” is a nasty thing to call someone.

    “Hair brained blond”

    IT’S LIKE HE’S SEEING INTO MY SOUUUUUUUUL!!! :D

    Awww, am I trolling the troll with my sarcasm? Poor baby. Now why don’t you tell us why you’re defending Marino when you yourself admit her position is one you “disapprove” of.

  171. #171 AdamG
    February 9, 2012

    This is just sad…the quality of the animal rights crazies has really decreased. From reading the thread start to finish it’s pretty clear Wow can’t even present a cogent argument. This one belongs in the category I like to call “masturbatory trolls” along with Sir Robin Wingnut and others…they just like to see their own name repeated throughout the thread. There’s nothing we could say that would have any effect on Wow…in its mind it’s already ‘won’ the argument.

  172. #172 Pareidolius
    February 9, 2012

    There’s nothing we could say that would have any effect on Wow…in its mind it’s already ‘won’ the argument.

    Clueless. Angry. Arrogant. Ever so haughty. Come to think of it, Wow sounds a lot like a certain supermodel ARA we know and love. I wonder . . .

  173. #173 JR
    February 9, 2012

    Oh look, the animal rights whackos are here.

    Anyway: I think my roommate has the markings of a future animal hoarder. Her behavior toward animals drives me to drink. If I didn’t put my foot down she would constantly be bringing cutesy wutesey little animal wanimals home – and she can’t afford to feed them and doesn’t actually want to do anything to take care of them, in fact when they act up she becomes enraged, yet she wants to give them all a home! She has a cat she’s owned since she was a young teen whom I end up feeding half the time because she forgets; she brought home a TNR cat from a friends house that she’s lost interest in that I’ve inherited; and I slowly talked her out of believing she had rights to a gorgeous cat that is actually mine (she never did anything for it, mind you – I’ve paid all of his vet bills and he sleeps in my room at night except when she sneaks off with him and locks him in her room because she has a yen for him.) She seems to think animals are stuffed dolls to play with. I’ve tried to talk her into bringing her cat to the vet but since she can’t afford it she comes up with excuses as to why she doesn’t need to – it’s been, by her account, 3-4 years since she’s had any shots. Then she began bringing home dogs, jsut any dog she happened to find wandering the streets or whatever dog her friends would give her. On one occasion, the dog had an owner and our neighbor told her this, I overheard the conversation, but she tied it up in the yard anyway and pretended to me it hadn’t taken place and that she’d called the pound to come collect it – I let the poor thing go so it could run home (two doors down) after she went to work. Two other times she’s taken a stray adult dog in and locked it in her room for upward of 10 hours while she went out to work, then to hang out with friends while it howled barked, and chewed things up. Then she brought home a puppy so small it looked barely weaned, at which point I told her she better have a baby sitter lined up for it when she went to work. I was afraid it would die if she left it uncared for at a twelve hour stretch, i was that small. She became angry with it for “whining” all night by the next day, however, and found someone to give it away to, luckily someone who gave it a good home.
    She never once brought any of these animals to the vet. She had no intention of it – that would have cost MONEY. She just wanted to have them, as companions who would be cuddly and fuzzy and not bother her or make noise when she didn’t want them to – companions who will sit in the house uncomplainingly when she goes out all day and night. And as soon as one animal disappoints her – as all of them always will, because pets do not exist solely to entertain and nurture her bad moods, but must be cared for – she gets another one and neglects the one that already exists, just adds to the collection (or would if I didn’t put my foot down). I feel like I’m the only thing restraining her, and we won’t be living together forever.
    So is this someone who will be a future hoarder, or is the psychological mechanism in pet hoarding different?

  174. #174 nsib
    February 9, 2012

    Wow also believes that GMOs are intrinsically evil. I wish I was kidding. So I’m not surprised that Wow’s being incoherent about yet another hot-button topic.

  175. #175 Archangl508
    February 10, 2012

    It appears that after 173 comments, I think we can clearly state that we have discovered an individual who rivals Th1Th2 in inane postings, something I scarcely thought possible.

  176. #176 Militant Agnostic
    February 10, 2012

    nsib

    Wow also believes that GMOs are intrinsically evil.

    The last time I saw him in these parts, he was defending Prince Charles.

    Also, you would think in an animal rights thread, he would get the insult “hare brained” right.

  177. #177 Wow
    February 10, 2012

    “he was defending Prince Charles.”

    OK, so what’s that supposed to say?

    You all seem to be unable to actually look at yourselves. You ARE right because you are “the good guys”, and you’re the good guys because you’re right!

    Circular logic is what the fathiests use and all the crackpot conspiracy theorists. And you lot too.

    I’ve not avoided answers. Every one of you has gish galloped yourself away at every opportunity.

    But, because it’s YOU doing it, that’s not a gish gallop, merely proof that I’m wrong! Somehow…

  178. #178 Wow
    February 10, 2012

    “IT’S LIKE HE’S SEEING INTO MY SOUUUUUUUUL!!!”

    It’s like you’re some sort of animal rights nut insisting that I have to get to know you before I can comment on your abilities and mental state…

    Just ask mom.

    I note that you along with everyone else are avoiding answering questions or even putting some evidence other than your personal beliefs forward.

  179. #179 Lawrence
    February 10, 2012

    @Wow – I’m sorry that we don’t agree that making terroristic threats, advocating bodily harm to individuals and their families, and engaging in snuff fantasties about people that disagree you (meaning Marino & her ilk) are legitimate tactics to change policy.

    You don’t seem to grasp that civil society frowns upon these tactics regardless of the cause it purportedly supports.

    I don’t need to cite studies that the open advocation of violence is wrong – it is just wrong.

  180. #180 Science Mom
    February 10, 2012

    I’ve not avoided answers. Every one of you has gish galloped yourself away at every opportunity.

    But, because it’s YOU doing it, that’s not a gish gallop, merely proof that I’m wrong! Somehow…

    Too bad Wow didn’t take my advice and sit on his/her hands, now we have even MOAR stupid. You clearly don’t know what a Gish Gallop is as it hasn’t been done to you. “Hair brained blond”? Can’t even get that right either, not to mention how chauvinistic it is. No wonder you’re an apologist for animal rights fanatics; the movement doesn’t exactly attract the best the the brightest.

  181. #181 Wow
    February 10, 2012

    “we don’t agree that making terroristic threats”

    Ah, yes. The good ol’ “Teh terrists!” used everywhere as a trump card instead of thought.

    What was wrong with calling it “threats”?

    Obviously not scary enough.

    PS nobody can say what:

    “he was defending Prince Charles.”

    is supposed to say? ‘cos all I can see is “He supports someone, therefore he’s wrong!” which is really yet another non-sequitor. Again commonly employed by creationists, IDers and other anti-science types.

  182. #182 Lawrence
    February 10, 2012

    @Wow – because individuals can “threaten” your business or “threaten” with protest or boycott…which constitutes a mere threat of economic action or the like.

    Once you cross over into the open advocating of direct violence, that constitutes a “terroristic” threat. You don’t seem to understand the difference here – that crossing that line, regardless of the cause supported, is unacceptable. We would be saying the exact same thing if someone openly advocated that anti-vaccination supporters or personalities be harmed in any way – violence or advocating violence to support a cause is not an acceptable means to spur change.

    So, why, in this instance, do you believe this is acceptable behavior? And why shouldn’t we discourage it?

  183. #183 Science Mom
    February 10, 2012

    Ah, yes. The good ol’ “Teh terrists!” used everywhere as a trump card instead of thought.

    What was wrong with calling it “threats”?

    Obviously not scary enough.

    This is another tactic of animal-rights extremists, you do hate that word ‘terrorist’ don’t you? Well, she is by most definitions of the word. Marino’s words and actions go beyond mere ‘threats’ and are safely planted in the realm of terrorism.

    Again commonly employed by creationists, IDers and other anti-science types.

    Oh so you aren’t getting the respect you think you deserve so we’re ‘anti-science’ types. Considering what mind-numbing crap has fallen forth from your finger tips, I hardly think it’s a stretch that you don’t even know what science is.

  184. #184 adelady
    February 10, 2012

    Has anyone seen the new bot delivery guy? They promised to fast-track the reprogramming (maybe even cloning) and get it over here pronto.

    The current non-Th infestation doesn’t offer even a new set of bingo cards, let alone a dictionary. Only an active bot can raise standards around here now.

  185. #185 Vuffy
    February 10, 2012

    Ugh… “animal rights” groups are the bane of conservationists everywhere. I believe that a *lot* more people would be willing to help out with sane environmental/conservation projects if they weren’t completely put-off by the extremist, hypocritical, emotional, and self-righteous PETA types.

  186. #186 Wow
    February 10, 2012

    “because individuals can “threaten” your business or “threaten” with protest or boycott.”

    And with physical violence.

    http://www.defencelaw.com/penalty-violence.html

  187. #187 JGC
    February 10, 2012

    Wowo, the evidence you claim we haven’t provided has been provided: it exists as Camille’s own posts offered on the Negotiation Is Over website, and is included in Orac’s post above in the form of direct quotes , and as links to discussions of the harassment of Dr. O’leary, her call for harassment of undergraduates “as the soft underbelly of the vivesectionist movement”, her targeting of undergrad Alena Rodriguez, etc.

    Camille advocates violence against animal researchers and their immediate families to achieve an ideologic goal–an end to research using animal models. She publishes personal information about researchers and their families to demonstrate their vulnerability (if not to abet third parties intent on harming them) She considers the assault, torture, and murder of researchers employing animal models as ‘activism’, and states explicitly she’d be elated to view a video of the assault and murder.

    What more do you feel is needed?

  188. #188 Lawrence
    February 10, 2012

    @Wow – did you have a point? Or do you accept that Marino’s actions either border on or are part and parcel criminal activities.

  189. #189 Calli Arcale
    February 10, 2012

    JR — oh, what a heartbreaking situation for you to live in. Yes, I think you’re right that your roommate is likely to become a hoarder. She is already oblivious to the needs and distress of her animals. I used to think such a thing was impossible, but then I started watching the animal cop shows on Animal Planet. *shudders* I saw one the other day where the people were in court to determine custody of their surviving horses, all of which were emaciated (and some of which had to be euthanized, IIRC, because they were too far gone). The legal owner of the horses was on the witness stand and was shown a picture of a dead horse, obviously dead for some time as the skin had pulled back from the mouth, exposing bone. She claimed the horse had been perfectly fine that morning, and therefore was dead less than a day before the cops arrived. *shakes head* How can people be so oblivious? I know they are, but I just don’t understand the level of denial required.

  190. #190 Wow
    February 10, 2012

    “did you have a point?”

    Yes.

    Several, all avoided like the plague.

    Because they’re emotionally abhorrent to you, since you know you’re the good guys, therefore everyone else must be wrong.

    One of the (many) problems with the USA today and spreading around the world. Two sides. At least it’s not communism with only one side!!!

  191. #191 Gray Falcon
    February 10, 2012

    Emotionally abhorrent? They are threatening innocent people’s lives, for the sake of political ideology! That is terrorism, by definition!

  192. #192 Wow
    February 10, 2012

    And anyone know what the point was to, to take merely one example:

    “he was defending Prince Charles.”

    ?

    Or is this only for “the wrong” to have?

  193. #193 Wow
    February 10, 2012

    “Emotionally abhorrent?”

    Yes, you find the idea that you’re using anti-science arguments and are irrational.

    And by providing proof as well as illumination of this fact is emotionally abhorrent to you, because you are the science good guys ™ and CANNOT DO WRONG.

    Therefore anyone who even *thinks* that there may be reasoning for these actions is told “Zip it”.

    Real open minded. Just like the creationists.

    Anyone who points out that you use the same phraseology of “perceived pain of animals” just like a creationist whackjob is a nutter (for pointing out your actions).

    Anyone who shows you avoiding questions, trolling, or otherwise acting in the same ways you vilify and castigate any creationist who comes across your path on the internet must be silenced.

    Because even though you use the same words, the same arguments and the same avoidance tactics, you’re nothing like the creationists and anti-scientists.

    Because you’re not.

    Finding out you are is emotionally abhorrent to you.

    Which is why there’s all this accusation and avoidance. Demanding I have a point, not anyone who is vilifying me. Demanding I answer questions, but never offering answers yourselves.

    Because, despite you wanting so desperately to be different from the anti-science crowd, you are, in word and deed, their brethren in belief.

    The belief that, NO MATTER THE EVIDENCE, you’re right.

  194. #194 Wow
    February 10, 2012

    And innocent of WHAT?

    Working at an animal testing centre? Nope, they do, so they’re not innocent of that.

    And, given that that is what this woman is verbally abusing these people for, she’s not threatening innocent people.

    Not guilty of a crime? But then again Saddam Hussein wasn’t guilty of any crime. He was the one writing the laws, so he made them legal.

    But others decided this wasn’t right and assaulted him, even though innocent of any crime, because the law wasn’t working. It tends not to for the soverign dictator in a country.

    So, if you only came in to Gulf War 2 at the time of the Shock And Awe tactics, you’d be calling the entire West a bunch of psychopaths.

    And for DARING to say that maybe you need to look a little more discriminatingly, I get a “zip it” “terroristic threats” “weasel word avoidance of all the above” and so on.

    All emotional blackmailing to shout down thought and suppress opinion.

    Not very scientific.

  195. #195 Lawrence
    February 10, 2012

    Wow has got to be blackheart – because his non-arguments are so similar.

    He is attempting to argue that we are supportive of animal cruelty, when we have done no such thing.

    What we have done is registered our view that Marino’s activities are not a legitimate reaction or in any way tolerable in a civil society. That there are ways and means of protest and shaping public policy, at all levels, and that those that resort to either violence or threats of violence to get their way, do not have a place here.

    Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

  196. #196 JGC
    February 10, 2012

    Therefore anyone who even *thinks* that there may be reasoning for these actions is told “Zip it”.

    How are you using the word “reasoning” here, in the phrase “reasoning for these actions”?

    If you’re using it literally to indicate that she must have some motivation to threaten researchers and their immediate families, publish their personal information on a website advocating violence against them, to harass undergrad students, etc., we already know the’s resoning for heractions: forcing compliance with an ideologic goal–the elimination of the use of animal models.

    If on the other hand you’re using the word ‘reasoning’ as a synonymm for “justification”, I’ll have to ask you support such an extraordinary claim beyond suggesting personal threats, advocating violence and acts of harrassment must be considered nothing more than the expression of an opinion.

  197. #197 Mephistopheles O'Brien
    February 10, 2012

    Wow,
    Your point regarding Saddam is irrelevant, as nation states reserve to themselves the ability to do things they forbid to their citizens.

  198. #198 JGC
    February 10, 2012

    Working at an animal testing centre? Nope, they do, so they’re not innocent of that.

    To no greater extent than a pre-school teacher is guilty of teaching at a preschool, or a librarian is gyuilty of working at a library–do you agree?

    So if I threatened physical violence against preschool teachers or librarians if they continued to work in their chosen fields, if I extended that threat to their immediate families, if I published personal information about teachers and libararians to demonstrate their vulnerability to physical assault, if I began targeting and harassing undergrads seeking teaching certification and degrees in library science demanding they abandon those careers, in your opinion I wouldn’t be threatening innocent people?

    Further, you’d not only think doing so was acceptable behavior but it represented a rational response to the ‘problem’ of people teaching and acrchiving books?

    Really?

  199. #199 Science Mom
    February 10, 2012

    And innocent of WHAT?

    Working at an animal testing centre? Nope, they do, so they’re not innocent of that.

    And, given that that is what this woman is verbally abusing these people for, she’s not threatening innocent people.

    Now we’re getting to the meat of the matter here; you DO approve of Marino’s tactics, maybe just not something you’d do personally. She’s threatening innocent people, your lame comparison to Hussein notwithstanding.

    All emotional blackmailing to shout down thought and suppress opinion.

    Not very scientific.

    You intellectual divot, A.) Who the fuck is suppressing your verbal diarrhoea; it’s obvious you are free to fap away and B.) This isn’t a discussion of science, it’s about a sleazy, cowardly skank who thumbs her nose at decency and law. Go boo-hoo somewhere else. Geez, can’t the animal rights activists do better with representation?

  200. #200 Melissa G
    February 10, 2012

    JR @ #173–

    Oh, my. What a dreadful thing to live with! May I suggest you watch a few episodes of “Hoarders,” because I am willing to bet you will observe the same denial, avoidance behaviors, mis-wired thought processes, and even body language in your roommate as these confirmed hoarders exhibit when people try to help them. It is a mental disorder, akin to OCD, and as such it has certain characteristic behaviors. (IANAD, so take this for whatever Stupid Internet Advice is worth.)

    To me, the saddest part of all is that animal hoarders really believe they love these animals, even as they kill them with neglect! If you can, please encourage her to get psychiatric help. Hoarding behaviors like this tend to get worse as folks age, and if she ever gets a place with no roommate, any animal she brings home is likely doomed to a slow and agonizing death.

  201. #201 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.

  202. #202 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.

  203. #203 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.

  204. #204 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.

  205. #205 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.

  206. #206 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…

  207. #207 mediajackal
    February 10, 2012

    Who the hell is Queenie?

  208. #208 Mr. Kelly M Bray
    February 11, 2012

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

  209. #209 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.

  210. #210 Narad
    February 11, 2012

    Who the hell is Queenie?

    The main subject of the PCRM Department of Agriculture petition.

  211. #211 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.

  212. #212 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.)

  213. #213 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).

  214. #214 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.

  215. #215 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/

  216. #216 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.

  217. #217 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.

  218. #218 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.

  219. #219 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.

  220. #220 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.

  221. #221 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.

  222. #222 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.

  223. #223 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.”

  224. #224 Peebs
    February 12, 2012

    WoW.
    He’s gone.

  225. #225 alison
    February 12, 2012

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

  226. #226 Wow
    February 13, 2012

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

  227. #227 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.

  228. #228 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.

  229. #229 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.

  230. #230 Shay
    February 13, 2012

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

  231. #231 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.

  232. #232 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.

  233. #233 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

  234. #234 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.

  235. #235 Mike Crichton
    February 14, 2012

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

  236. #236 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

  237. #237 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.

  238. #238 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.

  239. #240 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.

  240. #241 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?

  241. #242 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?

  242. #243 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?

  243. #244 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. ;-)

  244. #245 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. .

  245. #246 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.

  246. #247 Anton P. Nym
    February 16, 2012

    Nurse, Larry is ready for his thorazine now.

    — Steve

  247. #248 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.

  248. #249 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

  249. #250 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.

  250. #251 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!”?

  251. #252 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?

  252. #253 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.?

  253. #254 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.

  254. #255 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.

  255. #256 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.

  256. #257 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?

  257. #258 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.

  258. #259 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.

  259. #260 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.

  260. #261 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.

  261. #262 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.)

  262. #263 Chris
    February 17, 2012

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

  263. #264 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.

  264. #265 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.

  265. #266 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?

  266. #267 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.

  267. #268 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.

  268. #269 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.

  269. #270 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.

  270. #271 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?

  271. #272 Lawrence
    February 19, 2012

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

  272. #273 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?

  273. #274 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/

  274. #275 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.

  275. #276 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.

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!