NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... naturally become discontent with the practice of testing on animals, without being able to realize that nowadays, pets are not being used as objects of scientific experiments. In his article Animal Testing: Beyond the Protests, Instances of Mistreatment are Rare, Tom Still says: Today, animal research is predominantly research involving rodents and rabbits. At GlaxoSmithKline PLCs London division, for example, only 5 percent of research and development involves animals and 99 percent of those animals are mice, rats and rabbits.
Protesters may flash disturbing images of monkeys screaming in pain, but primates arent at the core of most animal research today (Still, 2005). Therefore, if animal rights activists would really want to do something useful, within a context of striving to combat cruelty against animals, they would be much better off picketing Chinese restaurants, the owners of which are known for their tendency to skin cats and dogs, while serving these pets meat as chicken or beef to unsuspecting White customers. This, of course, cannot be done in principle, because in time free from whining about the fate of poor mice, Liberal wackos celebrate diversity. Therefore, it is very doubtful of whether animal rights activists are being concerned about the animals welfare as much as they would like us to believe. They simply cannot live without being allowed to whine about worlds injustices, as their full time occupation. This is the reason why they also cannot stop talking about the issue of racism.
For them, it is like a skin rash - the more it is being scratched, the more it itches. In its turn, the process of scratching provides these experts on tolerance with a prolonged masochistic excitement. The full extent of animal rights activists affection towards the animals is being illustrated in the article Cat-Eating Students Shooed off Facebook, which is available on the web site of The Copenhagen Post: Eating house pets in the name of animal welfare is a quick way to raise the hackles of not only animal rights groups, but also the on-line community, a group of journalism students in Arhus have discovered. The group, all students at the Danish School of Journalism, had their Facebook accounts closed by the on-line community's administrators after they uploaded pictures of themselves cooking and eating a cat (The Copenhagen Post, 2008). These sickos had taken pictures of themselves cooking and eating a cat, while having tears in their eyes (they felt sorry for the poor animal) all in the name of protection of animals! Another example one of todays most outspoken advocates of animal liberation movement, closely affiliated with PETA, Alan Dershowitz is also an ardent supporter of legalization of torture in U.
S. , as only the effective method of extracting confessions out of suspected terrorists. In his article Making the Future Ours, Kevin Alfred Strom says: Alan Dershowitz, has openly called for the legalization of torture, with the argument that were doing it anyway, so why not make it legal and open and accountable. Hes even called for the creation of a new kind of legal document, the torture warrant (Strom, 2004). In its turn, this leaves no doubts as to the fact that neo-Liberalism is nothing but a form of mental illness, which is why the arguments of hysterical defenders of animals welfare cannot even be considered seriously these people should have been checked into mental hospitals long ago, instead of being allowed to roam free, while promoting their craziness as the legitimate form of political activity. In fact, they should not even be allowed to own pets one can never be too sure as to what do they do to the poor creatures. There are many good reasons to think that animal rights activists are simply following the footsteps of their spiritual ancestors - Christians and Commies.
Christians had succeeded in slaughtering millions of people as heretics, while never getting tired of praising the good book, as such that promotes tolerance. In the similar manner, Communist commissars had succeeded in murdering millions of Russians, simply because they belonged to a wrong social class, during the course of the process of Russia being turned into workers paradise. Todays animal rights activists think that it is OK (and even necessary) to eat cats and dogs, and that there is nothing wrong with torturing people, while screaming bloody murder over the cruel treatment of mice and rats in the labs! Apparently, rounding up these sickos behind the barbed wire, issuing them with shovels and telling them to do something useful for a change, like helping farmers to scoop up manure, is the only effective way to deal with these peoples psychological problems.
In his book The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness, Lyle H. Rossiter is making an absolutely good point when he says: When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims (lab rodents), rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious (Rossiter, 2006, p. 5). There can be no doubt as to the fact that in civilized society, animals must enjoy a certain degree of protection, but this does not mean that experimentation on lad rodents should be banned nationwide, simply because experts on tolerance think that such practice is morally wrong. Such experiments cannot be morally wrong by definition, because of objective nature of scientific notions. For example, at least 70 % of todays medicinal knowledge, as to peoples anatomy, psychology and their reproductive capabilities, directly derives out of scientific data, obtained during the course inmates of Nazis concentration camps being subjected to various experiments, which often led to their death. Does it mean that we now have to ban this knowledge as morally wrong?
It appears that, despite their rhetoric, animals rights activists do not really want to have the practice of experimentation on animals being de legitimized, as it would deprive them of one of their excuses to indulge in whining about social evils, as the only activity in which they can excel. Nowadays, the experimentation on animals is not being practiced as widely as it used to be the case, even as recent as twenty years ago, due to groundbreaking discoveries in the field of genetics, which had taken place during the course of recent years. In her article Animal Testing is Both Cruel and Unnecessary, Sharon Howe states: Organizations such as the Dr Happen Trust and the Humane Research Trust are funding vital research into all the major human diseases to replace painful procedures on animals. Cancer research projects use complex 3 D human cell cultures and mathematical modeling to improve the targeting of radiation treatments, for example, while new generations of brain scanning techniques - some of them developed at Oxford - are providing far more relevant insights into neurological diseases like Parkinson's than invasive operations on monkeys are ever likely to do (Howe, p. 2006). Thus, it is absolutely natural for the scientists to strive to find alternatives to experimentation on animals.
However, once the practice of such experimentation is being banned, it will not be because of animal rights activists tendency to place explosives under the cars of their opponents, but simply as an objective consequence of empirical sciences reaching new heights. And the reason for this is simple - it is the empirical science and not the religious or Liberal morality, which pushes forward cultural and scientific progress. If biologists were given a green light to enjoy a full freedom of action, within a context of designing new experimentation techniques, there would be no animal testing anymore even now, as animal rights activists themselves appear to be much more desirable objects for biological experimentation (especially in the field of psychiatry), then the poor rodents, on whose behalf the self-proclaimed guardians of public morality act. (4) As we have mentioned in introductory part of this paper, the overwhelming majority of animal right activists are White. This is not a coincidence. Due to the fact that in sixties, the policy of celebration of diversity in Western countries has been given an official status, these countries White citizens now stand on the brink of being turned into minority and eventually into second class citizens. However, while being deprived of their predecessors existential vitality (it is a rarity for White families to have more then one child), todays Whites are simply in no position of applying any active measures to assure their mastery in their own countries.
This is the reason why more and more of them tend to indulge in different forms of social escapism (participation in animal rights movement is nothing but a form of such escapism), while being unable to focus their attention on socio-political issues that really do matter. Therefore, the very popularity of animal rights movement, new age philosophy, and computer wizardry, among decadent Whites, indicates their existential inadequacy. Instead of trying to protect their own civil rights, which are being taken away from them, as we speak (institutionalization of affirmative action, for example), these people are being only concerned about protecting the rights of rats and mice, while seriously believing that such their existential stance make them a truly progressive individuals. As famous saying goes when God wants to punish people, he deprives them of their ability to think logically. Bibliography: Bremer, F. (2006). Puritans and Puritanism in Europe and America.
Santa Barbara, CA: ABC CLIO. Cat-Eating Students Shooed off Facebook. (2008). The Copenhagen Post Online. Retrieved June 3, 2009 from: web Hatfield, M. (2008). Animal Testing: No Time for Hysteria.
The Journal. Retrieved June 3, 2009 from: web Howe, S. (2006). Animal Testing is Both Cruel and Unnecessary. The Independent. Retrieved June 3, 2009 from: web Mytelka, A. (2007). Animal-Rights Militants Say They Put Bomb under UCLA Scientist's Car.
The Chronicle for Higher Education. Retrieved June 3, 2009 from: web Relate, A. (2003). The Animal Rights Movement in the United States: Some Thoughts about a New Ethics. Universidad de Alcala. Retrieved June 3, 2009 from: web Rossiter, L. (2006). The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.
New York: Free World Books. Ryder, R. (2000). Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes towards Speciesism. Berg Publishers.
Still, T. (2005). Animal Testing: Beyond the Protests, Instances of Mistreatment are Rare. WTN NEWS. Retrieved June 3, 2009 from: web Strom, K. (2004). Making the Future Ours.
The National Alliance. Retrieved June 3, 2009 from: web What's Wrong With Testing on Animals? (2001). Global Action Network. Retrieved June 3, 2009 from: web Abstract: This paper discuses the essence of Animal Rights Movement as such that stems out of this movement supporters mental inadequateness. Outline: Introduction / Thesis Characterization of Animal Rights Movement / Strategy Testing on animals as Animal Rights Movements key issue / Criticism Conclusion
Free research essays on topics related to: morally wrong, animal testing, animal rights movement, animal rights activists, animal research
Research essay sample on Animal Rights Activists Animal Rights Movement
