Italian Student receives Death Threats over Pro-Animal Experiement Statements

harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Italian Student receives Death Threats over Pro-Animal Experiement Statements

She has a rare disease and is now flooded by death wishes and death threats. What do you guys think of this behavior and her statements ?

Ill Italian condemns abuse over animal experiments defence

 

An Italian student suffering from a rare disease has denounced death threats she received after defending medical experiments on animals.

Caterina Simonsen said more than 30 "death wishes" and 500 abusive messages were sent to on her Facebook page.

The messages came after she uploaded a photo of herself with a message: "I am 25 thanks to genuine research that includes experiments on animals."

In response to the abuse, she has posted videos of her condition online.

Caterina Simonsen, 25, lives in Padua and studies veterinary medicine at Bologna University.

She says she suffers from four rare genetic disorders and cannot breathe unaided.

"Without research, I would have been dead at nine," she said in her initial message on 21 December. "You have gifted me a future."

But a torrent of comments followed - some suggesting the world would be better off with her dead.

She has forwarded the details to the Italian authorities.

Animal research has always been controversial.

Many people strongly oppose the use of any animals in experiments arguing it is cruel and unethical.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Forgot to add the link

Forgot to add the link to the story :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25540770


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
          If the

  

 

      If the medical community wants to know how something reacts in humans then use humans.  There is a huge pool of test subjects residing behind prison walls.    Any prisoner in the system doing  life without parole is automatically on the list.  If they die prematurely they can consider their deaths as a form of "early release".

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I say we need more animal

I say we need more animal experiments. On PETAs front door step. Starting with members of PETA.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
a line always has to be


a line always has to be drawn somewhere, and, when the rubber hits the road, i side with the human race. one human life is worth the lives of a thousand other species, in my opinion. speaking as a father, if my son's life depended on an operation that needed to be tested on a wide-eyed baby orangutan, well, fuck that adorable baby ape. give me the scalpel and i'll gut the little fucker myself, if no one else has the balls to. you know what, forget i even mentioned my son, i'd do the same shit for a total stranger.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:  ...i side

iwbiek wrote:

  ...i side with the human race.

 

      Me too, but with certain caveats.

 

iwbiek wrote:
...one human life is worth the lives of a thousand other species, in my opinion.

 

   You are over-simplifying.   The value of a human life is determined by patterns of behavior not taxonomy.  If a child rapist and my cat were both drowning in a lake I'll save my cat first and the child rapist ...i don't know.

That's why I specified using the most depraved prisoners for medical experiments.  These incurable sociopaths have already forfeited their right to remain free men, at least their continued existence can be used to benefit the rest of humanity.  Care can still be taken to decrease their physical suffering as much as possible.

 

     

iwbiek wrote:
...speaking as a father, if my son's life depended on an operation that needed to be tested on a wide-eyed baby orangutan, well, fuck that adorable baby ape. give me the scalpel and i'll gut the little fucker myself, if no one else has the balls to...

 

           If your personally "gutting an adorable, wide-eyed baby orangutan"  metaphor was to suggest your willingness to employ cold-hearted logic for the greater good then I suggest stepping it up a notch.  Stop being squeamish and experiment on actual humans beings instead.  Rationally speaking, what could possibly provide better results ? 

 

 

             It's the same reason medical students are given human cadavers to dissect and not the corpses of dogs or monkeys.

 

 http://www.scribd.com/doc/7500305/Human-Cadaver-Dissection-for-Medical-and-Scientific-Research-vs-Animal-Specimen-Dissections-in-Grade-School-Classrooms

 

  

 

  

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:iwbiek

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

  ...i side with the human race.

 

      Me too, but with certain caveats.

 

iwbiek wrote:
...one human life is worth the lives of a thousand other species, in my opinion.

 

   You are over-simplifying.   The value of a human life is determined by patterns of behavior not taxonomy.  If a child rapist and my cat were both drowning in a lake I'll save my cat first and the child rapist ...i don't know.

That's why I specified using the most depraved prisoners for medical experiments.  These incurable sociopaths have already forfeited their right to remain free men, at least their continued existence can be used to benefit the rest of humanity.  Care can still be taken to decrease their physical suffering as much as possible.

 

     

iwbiek wrote:
...speaking as a father, if my son's life depended on an operation that needed to be tested on a wide-eyed baby orangutan, well, fuck that adorable baby ape. give me the scalpel and i'll gut the little fucker myself, if no one else has the balls to...

 

           If your personally "gutting an adorable, wide-eyed baby orangutan"  metaphor was to suggest your willingness to employ cold-hearted logic for the greater good then I suggest stepping it up a notch.  Stop being squeamish and experiment on actual humans beings instead.  Rationally speaking, what could possibly provide better results ? 

 

 

             It's the same reason medical students are given human cadavers to dissect and not the corpses of dogs or monkeys.

 

 http://www.scribd.com/doc/7500305/Human-Cadaver-Dissection-for-Medical-and-Scientific-Research-vs-Animal-Specimen-Dissections-in-Grade-School-Classrooms

 

  

 

  




well, first of all, let me emphasize that i'm talking about life or death situations here, so i hardly think the logic is "cold-blooded." loss of life is usually a very emotional thing, at least for somebody.


i do not mean to say that all human lives are equally valuable in my estimation, just that as a whole human life is more valuable than animal life. i freely admit this is a subjective judgment based on my being a member of the human race. if an orangutan were capable of such judgments, i would expect it to have a totally different scale of value, no doubt with its own species at the top, and i certainly wouldn't blame it for that.


i also don't mean to say animal life is worthless. in my judgment, all life has some worth. that's why i don't support testing cosmetics and shit on animals because those things are unnecessary luxuries. but when it comes to researching life-saving medical treatments, yeah, test away, please. as for using human subjects, i'm still undecided on that. i understand your point of view on violent, convicted felons, child rapists, etc., but i would argue those people have forfeited their lives by taking or ruining the lives of others, so my scale of value doesn't apply to them. and yes, if i had to put a bullet in an already imprisoned and helpless serial murderer's head to do nothing more than save a few pandas, yes, i would. no problem.



"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
of course, a lot of this


of course, a lot of this boils down to whether or not one believes in a universal standard of ethics. i strongly do not and abhor the idea as dangerous, but one needn't be a theist or religious to believe in it (though i don't believe one can be a physicalist or positivist and believe in it). in that case, the only sure prophylactic against making an unethical decision concerning life is ahimsa.

that's why my new motto is, "if you can't be a john wayne, be a jain." (the pun works better if you pronounce "jain" as "jane," which all modern indian languages do.)

fyi, the motto pretty much depends on pun alone, since jains are actually strict relativists and materialists and do not believe in a universal standard of ethics either. they practise ahimsa for purely pragmatic reasons, since they believe violent acts cause the adhesion of karma to the individual "soul" or jiva. karma to the jains is not a universal "law" or efficacious act, but rather an extremely subtle form of matter which sticks to the jiva like dust and prevents its liberation.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Every one thinks that when

Every one thinks that when we say animals they are talking about whales, dolphins, cats, dogs....

In reality fruit flies, mice, rats, monkeys and pigs are often used for testing.

So... since the experiments on one million fruit flies saves a thousand human lives I think it is OK.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I would never support human

I would never support human testing before animal testing when it comes to medicine. It's more expensive, takes longer, less productive, and your so-called convicts are often innocent victims of a flawed justice system.
It simply isn't logical to use humans in the opening stages of testing. No matter what they've done.

And there's no justification for it either. Most criminals have a good reason for their crimes. Most of the rest are victims of stupid laws. And finally, punitive justice is the tool of yhe barbaric.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
I find many cases of using

I find many cases of using animals as test subjects very disturbing and the conditions the animals are usually kept in are quite immoral. I couldn't do it. But then, I get extremely upset going to the zoo, I have very low tolerance for animal suffering. If I thought that morality alone was a good excuse for a law I would probably be out there protesting with the PETA coeds.

I agree with Prozac, I would have far less of an emotional reaction if testing was done on scumbags. I do think that such a program should be voluntary though. Maybe offer them a little more comfortable cell if they decide to participate. I'm also a strong believer that humans who volunteer for trials should be allowed to as long as they are made aware of the risks. It seems absurd to me that people who are terminal and about to die within months are denied experimental treatments. Worst case scenario is they die a little earlier and the doctors might learn something that could save lives in the future. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I would never

Vastet wrote:
I would never support human testing before animal testing when it comes to medicine. It's more expensive, takes longer, less productive, and your so-called convicts are often innocent victims of a flawed justice system. It simply isn't logical to use humans in the opening stages of testing. No matter what they've done. And there's no justification for it either. Most criminals have a good reason for their crimes. Most of the rest are victims of stupid laws. And finally, punitive justice is the tool of yhe barbaric.

 

                I can accept your objections based upon your personal ethics ...to each his own of course... but to suggest that to learn more about humans we should avoid human test subjects makes no sense scientifically speaking.  That's like saying for me to learn to speak fluent German I should study only Russian because they both happen to be languages.  Only humans are human, therefore studies should be based upon that alone.  That doesn't mean going all Dr. Josef Mengele on the test subjects ( even if they are criminals ) as I already said that measure should be taken to prevent needless suffering.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:ProzacDeathWish

iwbiek wrote:

well, first of all, let me emphasize that i'm talking about life or death situations here, so i hardly think the logic is "cold-blooded." loss of life is usually a very emotional thing, at least for somebody.
i do not mean to say that all human lives are equally valuable in my estimation, just that as a whole human life is more valuable than animal life. i freely admit this is a subjective judgment based on my being a member of the human race. if an orangutan were capable of such judgments, i would expect it to have a totally different scale of value, no doubt with its own species at the top, and i certainly wouldn't blame it for that.
i also don't mean to say animal life is worthless. in my judgment, all life has some worth. that's why i don't support testing cosmetics and shit on animals because those things are unnecessary luxuries. but when it comes to researching life-saving medical treatments, yeah, test away, please. as for using human subjects, i'm still undecided on that. i understand your point of view on violent, convicted felons, child rapists, etc., but i would argue those people have forfeited their lives by taking or ruining the lives of others, so my scale of value doesn't apply to them. and yes, if i had to put a bullet in an already imprisoned and helpless serial murderer's head to do nothing more than save a few pandas, yes, i would. no problem.

                               

 

                                            ...although different, our views are not quite as divergent as I thought.  Thank you for your providing more context.

 

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:I find

Beyond Saving wrote:

I find many cases of using animals as test subjects very disturbing and the conditions the animals are usually kept in are quite immoral. I couldn't do it. But then, I get extremely upset going to the zoo, I have very low tolerance for animal suffering. If I thought that morality alone was a good excuse for a law I would probably be out there protesting with the PETA coeds.

I agree with Prozac, I would have far less of an emotional reaction if testing was done on scumbags. I do think that such a program should be voluntary though. Maybe offer them a little more comfortable cell if they decide to participate. I'm also a strong believer that humans who volunteer for trials should be allowed to as long as they are made aware of the risks. It seems absurd to me that people who are terminal and about to die within months are denied experimental treatments. Worst case scenario is they die a little earlier and the doctors might learn something that could save lives in the future. 

 

I agree. I can't go to Sea World or the local zoo with out getting annoyed. Animals which are used to roaming 50sq miles should be allowed to roam 50 sq miles. Not be kept in a 300x300 ft cage.

I also agree with the horrible living conditions for some animals but I'm not sure the length of that issue. Meaning, for doctors to experiement they need healthy subjects. The supplier wouldn't be in business for long if they delivered sick animals.

Terminal people should have the right to do what ever treatment they want... after all it is "western doctors" who are telling them, "hey your fucked.. nothing I can do for you".

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:but to

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
but to suggest that to learn more about humans we should avoid human test subjects makes no sense scientifically speaking.

I'm not quite saying that. If some cloning facility with accelerated aging processes could be cheaply set up to provide sufficient numbers of homo sapiens with which to conduct such tests then it might work well. But as it stands there simply aren't enough people. Especially for early testing, which is the most likely to be fatal. We'd have empty prisons everywhere within a year, and have to go straight back to animals anyway.

I do have severe ethical concerns with the idea, but I have just as many logical and scientific concerns. If not moreso.

For the record, I don't like zoos either. The only thing they are slightly good for is protecting endangered species, but they fail at that as often or more than they succeed, so that isn't saying much.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:I find

Beyond Saving wrote:

I find many cases of using animals as test subjects very disturbing and the conditions the animals are usually kept in are quite immoral. I couldn't do it. But then, I get extremely upset going to the zoo, I have very low tolerance for animal suffering. If I thought that morality alone was a good excuse for a law I would probably be out there protesting with the PETA coeds.

I agree with Prozac, I would have far less of an emotional reaction if testing was done on scumbags. I do think that such a program should be voluntary though. Maybe offer them a little more comfortable cell if they decide to participate. I'm also a strong believer that humans who volunteer for trials should be allowed to as long as they are made aware of the risks. It seems absurd to me that people who are terminal and about to die within months are denied experimental treatments. Worst case scenario is they die a little earlier and the doctors might learn something that could save lives in the future. 

 

That would be my thoughts on this matter as well.

If I am not mistaken, the differences between animal biology and human biology have rendered some experiments bad in general. I know the drug Thalidomide was one of those types of things. Worked well in animals and not in humans. I had a link to that somewhere that went more in depth, but would have to look for it.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno