Protest continues as whaling resumes 237

If you read on, you will find that that is in fact a highly conservative figure; and that's not counting non-lethal injury from adverse reactions to prescribed drugs.

I know. It's totally mind-boggling. ..

"Isn't man an amazing animal? He kills wildlife - birds, kangaroos, deer, all kinds of cats, coyotes, beavers, groundhogs, mice, foxes, and dingoes - by the millions in order to protect his domestic animals and their feed. Then he kills domestic animals by the billions and eats them. This in turn kills man by the millions, because eating all those animals leads to degenerative and bane health conditions like heart disease, kidney disease, and cancer. So then man tortures and kills millions more animals to look for cures for these diseases. .."... C. David Coats (from the preface of his book: Old MacDonald's Factory Farm) ... - which in turn injure and kill man by the million.

Too right. I hadn't thought of that... and won't neither.

I can accept that. There has, as you probably know, been a concerted attempt to discredit such therapies.

Ta. Exploitation of defenceless creatures at its worst.

I can't find any evidence for that, sadly. This from the U.S:

'As a result of a major campaign, use of the Draize eye-irritancy test has been reduced, though not abolished.'

Is this what you were thinking of?

'DECEMBER 2000: The always flawed, unscientific, antiquated, Lethal Dose 50 test has been abolished - in theory. Millions of animals have died in LD50 tests on household and cosmetic products. Not surprisingly the US and Japan opposed the abolition of the test, but have now gone along with it. The change has been agreed by all the members of the OECD, the club of the world's 29 richest nations. Britain, typically and wickedly, will still use it for testing vaccines and other procedures. ...'

An honest mistake. We all make them from time to time.

Wonderful, aren't they.

Lucky you. Yes, I think you daughter will love it too.

People can grant 'rights' to whomsoever they choose, and grant themselves the 'right' to exploit other species. Times are finally a'changing though, thank goodness.

'After Darwin, a huge and accumulating convergence of physiological, behavioural, genetic and evolutionary evidence suggests - but cannot prove - an appalling possibility. This is that hundreds of millions of the non-human victims of our actions are functionally akin - intellectually, emotionally and in their capacity to suffer - to very young humans. In the light of what we're doing to our victims, the consequences of their also being ethically akin to human babies or toddlers would be awful; in fact, almost too ghastly to think about.

When we're confronted with such an emotive parallel, all sorts of psychological denial and defence-mechanisms are likely to kick in. Undoubtedly, too, animal-exploitation makes our lives so much more convenient. Not surprisingly, in view of what we're doing to them, there is a powerful incentive for us as humans to rationalise our actions.

Numerous pretexts and rationalisations aimed at legitimating animal exploitation are certainly available; most of them seek to magnify the gulf between "us" and "them". Intellectually, however, they prove on examination to be surprisingly thin. ...

Such links are also posted here. I've seen some -- too much.

;)

Alright.

Yep.

Thanks.

Sure.. big bruver's watching. Hiya! Poke ya in the eye, bruv.