DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

is pouring acid on monkey penises is a laughing matter?

yes
31% (9 votes)
no
45% (13 votes)
ha ha monkeys
24% (7 votes)
Total votes: 29

Posted By

captainmission
Dec 8 2004 22:25

Tags

Share

Attached files

Comments

captainmission
Dec 8 2004 22:25

look at this http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/12/302516.html

Quote:
Instead we stood with our banner and placards opposite the chemistry building, where a number of the students seem to think the pictures of mutilated animals similar to those which will suffer in experiments to be carried out in the laboratory next do to them. Some of these pinnacles of civilisation and learning stuck a crude sign on their window saying “We put acid on monkey penises” – how charming! They were forced to take it down and given section 5 warnings by the police and told that the university would also be receiving a complaint.'

Funny?

Steven.
Dec 9 2004 01:20

TBH I'd agree with that. I mean they obviously don't put acid on mokey's cocks, they were taking the piss out of - as revol says - a bunch of people who are unthinkingly knee-jerk anti-science cos of a few cute bunnies. Well either unthinking or misanthropic.

kalabine
Dec 9 2004 08:20

the laughing matter is the silly primmos that think this happens

lucy82
Dec 9 2004 08:33

capt mission you sad sick fuck

and yes, its funny

grin

JDMF
Dec 9 2004 11:05
George'sBush wrote:
TBH I'd agree with that. I mean they obviously don't put acid on mokey's cocks, they were taking the piss out of - as revol says - a

GB, you didn't honestly think that they, as in the demonstrators, thought that they really do put acid on the monkeys penises?

The question wasn't that, the question was: is it funny to say that?

If you are against thirld world oppression outside shell headquarters and they put out a banner from the offices saying "One well hung ken saro-wiwa" with his picture, would you find that funny?

Quote:

bunch of people who are unthinkingly knee-jerk anti-science cos of a few cute bunnies. Well either unthinking or misanthropic.

This is unbeliebvably stupid statement, and i understand it if you were just being arse deliberately, or having one of those "heat of the moment" things.

1. Unthinkingly knee-jerk: surely people who have been campaiging against vivisection for years while being bombarded with information, arguments and abuse from the opposition have thought about their position?

2. anti-science: what anti-science is in a position which criticises one marginal method of scientific research? This criticism is best done on political and ethical issues, but large part of the anti-vivisection movement is opposing animal model on scientific grounds.

3. few cute bunnies: again, i'm really suprised you make this kind of revol-level comment. Most of the animal testing is done on fish and small rodents like mice and rats. Dogs, cats and rabbits are a small portion, but represent a bigger portion in the propaganda material because british public responds to that better. Now i don't really agree with this approach, but when doing stalls or whatever, it is the dog and cat pictures what get people asking for more information. You can rest assured though that a person who is campaigning against animal abuse is not about cute and fluffy animals only. For instance me, i don't even fucking like animals!

4. misanthropic: where did you get that from? Is any criticism of current animal abuse in the food production, entertainment or as a testing model automatically misanthropic? Are anti-racists anti white, like BNP says? Well done for adopting their model of thought mate.

Why would you spout such ill-thought revol and the kid crew rubbish mate? And don't think you are safley abusing some people "out there", everything you said there you could direct to me as an insult, as i am one of those "unthinking bunnyhugging misanthropist with a knee jerk attitude".

now try again, if you like.

gav
Dec 9 2004 11:29

if we are gonna debate animal rights, can we at least have some ground rules?

ok, here is rule 1) don't compare animals and humans as being like for like, it is very offensive.

JDMF wrote:
If you are against thirld world oppression outside shell headquarters and they put out a banner from the offices saying "One well hung ken saro-wiwa" with his picture, would you find that funny?
JDMF
Dec 9 2004 11:49
gav wrote:
if we are gonna debate animal rights, can we at least have some ground rules?

good idea.

Quote:

ok, here is rule 1) don't compare animals and humans as being like for like, it is very offensive.

rule 2. Don't assume that someone is comparing non-human animals to humans being like for like if someone makes a methaforical point to illustrate a situation.

Don't be so allergic mate, where did i say compare humans to non-humans as like for like?

now that kind of patronising is fucking offensive wink

Caiman del Barrio
Dec 9 2004 12:37

No it's a crying matter cos approx 60% of the "anarchist/activist" movement alternate between not washing and doing bullshit actions like this.

Ceannairc
Dec 9 2004 16:08

There's nothing wrong with not washing! Soap is the government of the state of cleanliness! (joke)

Anyway. It wasn't funny. So there. Seriously, it was just a bunch of apathetic students who probably care more about how much people think they drank last night than anything even remotely important. There are things living in my hair which are more socially aware than most students, and the public display of that kind of sick comment merely illustrates my point.

redyred
Dec 9 2004 19:14
JDMF wrote:
where did i say compare humans to non-humans as like for like?
JDMF wrote:
If you are against thirld world oppression outside shell headquarters and they put out a banner from the offices saying "One well hung ken saro-wiwa" with his picture, would you find that funny?

Now I'm not gonna flame you JDMF cos I know you're more intelligent than the anti-humanist twats that most animal liberationists are, but 1. your comment above is clearly making a comparison between humans and animals - saying a joke about dead animals should be condemned on the same ground as a joke about a dead activist and 2. it's not just a case of recognising that animals are less important than humans. You can't say "Although animals are less important, abuse to animals is still a bad thing so I can make comparisons between the struggles against their oppression" because the difference between humans and animals isn't just some sliding scale of value, they're in totally different ballparks in terms of the two struggles. One can self-emancipate, the other can only be externally liberated. Human struggles clearly have a much higher value, and not just because humans are more worth saving than animals.

samjam
Dec 10 2004 04:08

I found many of these demonstrators to be hysterical lunatics.

A few years ago there was a demonstration outside an exhibition building I was trying to get into. As I got near, about twenty of them surrounded me. One particular woman was screaming at me about how I should be ashamed of myself. She had a mad glazed look in her eyes and her face was twisted in disgust. You could tell that she had gone past the state of rationality. Her face was about a foot away from mine, her saliva was splashing on me as she screamed, "Same! Same! You should be ashamed of yourself! Same!"

Perhaps I should have been worried about my safety, but the situation was so surreal that I just had to laugh at her face. I had no idea what she was going on about.

Later I found out that one of the events in the building was a showcase for Chinese technology companies. Some animal rights activists heard about it and somehow decided that Chinese companies with animal labs would be there. It didn't occur to them that it was an IT event. They heckled me because I had vaguely oriental features.

kalabine
Dec 10 2004 08:48

what worries me most about the AR barbarian rabble is the large ratio of impressionable young girls and thirty something single men - what is going on there? neutral

and yes, comparing humans to animals is offensive in the extreme, the same as talking about a holocaust in relation to vivisection is anti semitic in practice if not intention

kalabine
Dec 10 2004 08:51
samjam wrote:
They heckled me because I had vaguely oriental features.

that's another thing, the racist element amongst the barb' is all too present, try telling them that if anything halal meat is less cruel then non halal roll eyes

Jason Cortez
Dec 10 2004 12:46

kalabine wrote

Quote:
telling them that if anything halal meat is less cruel then non halal

i assume this is a joke, if not please explain i love to hear this. 8)

captainmission
Dec 10 2004 15:29
redyred wrote:
your comment above is clearly making a comparison between humans and animals

Redydeds right JDFM is a witch, lets burn him. I know a guy that looks a bit like a rat. I have said to another human (who's not similar to any animals, hes just similar). On doing this i was overcome by pangs of guilt and revulsion (only aliveated by vicious maturbation over yaoi) cos i'd made a comparison between a man and a beast! See, i forgot we live in a world were a comparison is the same as moral eqivelence- i'd said this guy was the moral equivelent of a rat- an aminal some detestable it's only suitable for pets for gypsy kids or shooting in catapults at rich girls on ponies! If i'd continued with such dangerous thinking then anarchism would come true! but it would be a starnge dangerous anarchism were animals have equal standing in workers councils and it would be like the kids educational show badger girl and i'd be 10 sickiving off school cos it was PE today. Thank god that didn't happen

redyred
Dec 10 2004 16:30
captainmission wrote:
redyred wrote:
your comment above is clearly making a comparison between humans and animals

Redydeds right JDFM is a witch, lets burn him. I know a guy that looks a bit like a rat. I have said to another human (who's not similar to any animals, hes just similar). On doing this i was overcome by pangs of guilt and revulsion (only aliveated by vicious maturbation over yaoi) cos i'd made a comparison between a man and a beast! See, i forgot we live in a world were a comparison is the same as moral eqivelence- i'd said this guy was the moral equivelent of a rat- an aminal some detestable it's only suitable for pets for gypsy kids or shooting in catapults at rich girls on ponies! If i'd continued with such dangerous thinking then anarchism would come true! but it would be a starnge dangerous anarchism were animals have equal standing in workers councils and it would be like the kids educational show badger girl and i'd be 10 sickiving off school cos it was PE today. Thank god that didn't happen

1. To satirise someone you have to be making a valid point. Anyone can take half a sentence out of context and then generally be a cock about it. You'll never be half as funny (or sexually alluring) as Revol or Wayne, so don't even try.

2. Even if you don't agree, why do you assume I think making a direct comparison between the value of humans and animals is the same as saying someone looks like a rat? In future I'm going to be irrationally patronising towards all your posts out of spite.

3. You smell of old carpets

4. You obviously don't get the point of the argument anyway, since your response was so crap.

5. I find the idea of pouring acid on monkey penises is fucking hillarious.

JDMF
Dec 10 2004 17:16
redyred wrote:
your comment above is clearly making a comparison between humans and animals - saying a joke about dead animals should be condemned on the same ground as a joke about a dead activist

the reason i make the methaphore or comparison, which like captainmission says doesn't have anything to do with moral comparisons unless you are so hysterical that you have to intrepert everything to do with animal issues in the worst possible way as you and that kalabollocks guy seem to be always doing, is that if you do not care about what happens to some smelly fucking non-humans who are weak, stupid and you are so macho that you get kicks from dissing vegans or peopel in animal movement, i have to make a parallel comparisons of a situation which may cause some emotions in you?

Do you understand this simple point?

I'll say it again: because i know that guys like you, kalabollocks, jack etc don't care about animals and would find it funny to joke about such matters, to demonstrate this jokes offensive nature i have to use something which i know you care about.

Now if there was some issue which i didn't care about at all, but you were passionate, you may need to do the same - again without moral comparisons, but as a illustrative point.

Do you now understand this very, very simple point?

Actually i think whats up here is not that you didn't see that immediately, but that you are hell bent on seeing everything to do with animal movement as negative. kalabollocks is the same, he is even worse, just look at his past posts, every chance he gets he has taken a cheap shot against AR/AL/vegans. His latest is such a crap comment that its not even worth commenting.

JDMF
Dec 10 2004 17:20

and hey, i have to say, we get that kind of jokes all the time (the original monkey joke), which is why people don't get wound up about it - exept some nutters like what sam described, odd people are found in all movements i'm afraid, quite a high number in anarchist movement as well wink

But i do admit though, AR movement has a high ratio of people who do not play with full deck of cards...

kalabine
Dec 10 2004 18:24
Jason Cortez wrote:
kalabine wrote
Quote:
telling them that if anything halal meat is less cruel then non halal

i assume this is a joke, if not please explain i love to hear this. 8)

what do you think is a joke?

halal meet is certainly not crueler than other forms, and if anything is less cruel

i used to work in a halal slaughterhouse - and believe me - animals slaughtered in that way died quicker and in less pain than the ones that were "stunned" first

not that i would care if it was crueler mind you, i still support the right of muslim and jewish people to prepare meat in the way that fits in with their beliefs - despite my own opinion of their religions

lucy82
Dec 10 2004 18:33
Quote:
You'll never be half as funny (or sexually alluring) as Revol or Wayne, so don't even try.

please stop with the fuckin fan club. its doing my head in. if you want to make a point, do it without reference to revol or wayne.

capt mission

Quote:
an aminal some detestable it's only suitable for pets for gypsy kids or shooting in catapults at rich girls on ponies!

wow, the use of rats in classwar.

but i will never let you talk to my rats again, ratophobe. angry

redyred
Dec 10 2004 19:48
JDMF wrote:
the reason i make the methaphore or comparison, which like captainmission says doesn't have anything to do with moral comparisons unless you are so hysterical that you have to intrepert everything to do with animal issues in the worst possible way as you and that kalabollocks guy seem to be always doing, is that if you do not care about what happens to some smelly fucking non-humans who are weak, stupid and you are so macho that you get kicks from dissing vegans or peopel in animal movement, i have to make a parallel comparisons of a situation which may cause some emotions in you?

JDMF, yeah, I understand your point and like I've said before I know you're on the less bonkers end of animal rightism. But your argument about emotion doesn't prove anything. I'm a materialist - it's not about what various individuals are capable of feeling emotion for, it's about actual material differences that can be viewed objectively.

For example, when Margaret Thatcher dies there will be plenty of fun, joy and bad taste jokes, and I'm not going to stop laughing just because one of Thatcher's friends or relatives or some nutty sentimentalist little englander comes up and says "But this is offending me, I had a deep emotional attachment to the late Mrs Thatcher". Just because some people feel saddened by her death doesn't detract from the fact that we will have finally lost someone who was at least symbolically one of the greatest class enemies the British proletariat has ever faced.

Conversely if one of my close friends died in some really bizarre and unlikely accident, I would be totally distraught. But I would understand if someone totally unconnected with the event found it funny that Jack was crushed to death when his genitals got caught in a printing press.

And your example of Ken Saro-Wiwa - his death isn't something I feel strong emotions over. I certainly can't mourn him cos I never knew the guy. And it's pretty rare that I'll feel much anger towards the bourgeoisie or sadness over their victims when I'm not personally connected to the events because if you're involved in lefty politics it's a fact that you get sensitised to that kind of thing. But I can recognise that his murder was an attack by a section of the ruling class upon a section of the working class, so I condemn it. But you can't say the same thing about monkeys in a vivisection lab.

Basically my point is I don't decide base my wider politics on my emotions. I would probably have some pretty bizarre politics if I did. I base my politics on an objective material analysis. Can I just also remind everyone that it's class.

Oh yeah and can you drop the whole thing about non-animal rights people having some kind of macho complex? It's not helping you much.

lucy82 wrote:
please stop with the fuckin fan club. its doing my head in. if you want to make a point, do it without reference to revol or wayne.

But they are an enrager cultural reference point, I have to mention them otherwise people just won't understand.

Caiman del Barrio
Dec 10 2004 20:22
lucy82 wrote:
Quote:
You'll never be half as funny (or sexually alluring) as Revol or Wayne, so don't even try.

please stop with the fuckin fan club. its doing my head in. if you want to make a point, do it without reference to revol or wayne.

Innit.

JDMF
Dec 10 2004 21:55
kalabine wrote:
Jason Cortez wrote:
kalabine wrote
Quote:
telling them that if anything halal meat is less cruel then non halal

i assume this is a joke, if not please explain i love to hear this. 8)

what do you think is a joke?

halal meet is certainly not crueler than other forms, and if anything is less cruel

i used to work in a halal slaughterhouse - and believe me - animals slaughtered in that way died quicker and in less pain than the ones that were "stunned" first

not that i would care if it was crueler mind you, i still support the right of muslim and jewish people to prepare meat in the way that fits in with their beliefs - despite my own opinion of their religions

kalab, you know very well that anyone into AR/AL or who are vegans don't give a flying fuck about the exact method of slaughter. Stunning, or throat slit just before stunning, is same difference to me. I agree with you that halal is not any more cruel than the regular way animals are killed (besides, many animals are killed without stunning anyway so the whole distinction is hypocritical) and only some meat eating animal welfarist who digs dogs may have an issue about halal, but not slaughter in general.

Sometimes you get the odd ones who have deep racism and use this halal as a argument of convenience. I'm sure if we would go to BNP web site we would find things about halal. This is one reason why animal rights/lib folks on the grassroots don't usually say anything about the halal issue, apart from saying that it doesn't make any fucking difference how the last second of an animal is spent.

Kala, unless you are completely ignorrant of AR movement you should know that the movement as a whole is strongly anti-racist, and in AFA/antifa stuff i've been in i've always done stuff in a vegan crew and non meateaters seem to outnumber meaties in these events 3 to 1 (or perhaps just the ones i've been to). If you do not have a clue about the grassroots radical AR/AL/Vegan movement and have based your opinions on some Dog Lovers United welfare group, then i apologise for my previous comments dissing you. But you have made many posts in the pasts calling people like me scum for some reason, so there must be some negative experience of AR folks in the past?

redyred, thank you for going philosophical on me. Like you, i do not know the potential monkey in question, and do not have any emotional attachments to this said creature. But i do have political, ethical and of couse emotional reasons as well (after all, we do have emotions don't we? Even the most hardened materialists) against using monkeys in experiments. Inflicting pain to monkeys as a joke may strike funny to you because you don't have any political, ethical or indeed emotional reason to give a toss what is done to these living feeling creatures.

To illustrate the emotions i had to then use a comparison. And this i really had to spell out had to do with trying to get YOU understand what goes on in my head when someone says that it is funny.

I take you going philosophical as a agreement that you now understand my position? I am not thinking that you would share it, just understand it and then have the decency not to rub it in my face?

The macho complex comes from having to overact reactions to distinguish yourself from these "animal loving" folks, sorry mate, but i've seen a lot of it. Perhaps you don't have it, but certainly some people on this board do. Other bizarre phenomenon are people who just enjoy conflict and say whatever it takes to get people irritated.

Now normally i'm a calm guy, but as you've probably seen sometimes i have a temper and some things just really bug me. I'm starting to think this forum is not really worth it though wink

Jason Cortez
Dec 12 2004 21:50

kalabine wrote

Quote:
halal meet is certainly not crueler than other forms, and if anything is less cruel

i used to work in a halal slaughterhouse - and believe me - animals slaughtered in that way died quicker and in less pain than the ones that were "stunned" first

I don't wish to diss your skills as a Halal slaughterhouse personnel, but i will take your claim with a pinch of salt. Various studies have been conducted that suggest so called 'humane methods' (these actually seem to have introduced to keep the animal still for easier automated processing) inflict less pain. I am also aware of a German study which 'proved' that the halal method inflicted less pain. I am sure the scientific community will continue to debate this and carry on research for years to come. The reality in slaughterhouses is that animals are commodities and are treated as such. The difference in treatment is not "if anything.. less cruel".

Quote:
not that i would care if it was crueler mind you

So your bringing in halal meat into the debate was smear tactic to close down debate or just a careless afterthought?

kalabine
Dec 13 2004 13:35
Jason Cortez wrote:

So your bringing in halal meat into the debate was smear tactic to close down debate or just a careless afterthought?

no, just in my experience lots of AR types seem obsessed with the halal/kosher issue

JoeMaguire
Dec 13 2004 16:51

Oh look, another AR thread, containing the same tired old slurs.... roll eyes

3rdseason
Dec 13 2004 18:32
kalabine wrote:
i used to work in a halal slaughterhouse

Stop right there. eek eek angry

3rdseason
Dec 13 2004 21:53

Face it. You think everyone who doesnt agree with everything you think has shite politics.

Its worse because those further down the line at least have the excuse that they are screened from the bloody process of slaughter. They have to stack neatly packaged bits of meat onto shelves and such.

wheresmyshoes
Dec 13 2004 22:02

hows that then? you're still contributing to the same ends, just cause you see a cow get slaughtered doesn't make you any worse

Ginja ninja
Dec 13 2004 22:56

its completely different! people that work at tesco's stacking shelves didnt applying for a job which probably said on the application form: 'any good at killing animals?'