UCLA Research Vice Chancellor Activist Interview 3 of 3

[boneillus]

Finally, even if you could think that there are good "x,y" reasons (environmental, scientific, etc) what is up for debate is only what the "z" ethical reasons may be because everything boils down to ethics---When you tell people what they "shall or shall not do", you are by definition talking ethics. To say "ethical AND scientific", as if that last piece is the real zinger to us is off since the fact that scientists separate the two is the very problem in the first place. Ethics are important.

[corycatlady]

@boneillus Look, you are not a Doctor or even a dunce that chops up defenseless LIVING animals. You are not qualified to debate the subject and I am not here to debate you or anyone else. I am just an activist that wants UCLA to debate what they claim is helping human beings. Now go attack someone else on utube.

[boneillus]

What you meant to say was that you "are not ONLY for animal welfare; and that you are for the total abolishment....cont. ...." To say that you are not for animal welfare is kind of silly.

You cannot be for the abolishment of animal experimentation "for scientific reasons." I know the usual talking points; and what they mean is "clinical science." There are no good basic science reasons to abolish animal experimentation.

[ShroedingerWatcher]

@boneillus "There are no good basic science reasons to abolish animal experimentation" And why is that then?

[boneillius]

@ShroedingerWatcher Because basic science is concerned only with knowledge, and animal, or human experimentation for that matter, yields knowledge. I'm just trying to be clear, and since she says that the "medical" reasons against it are that it yields bad treatments (which makes perfect sense, since good treatment outcomes are the goal in medicine), I'm just subsequently drawing attention to the fact that it is actually incorrect to say that there are scientific reasons against it. There are 0

[ShroedingerWatcher]

@boneillius You wish. You joined in 2007, from America, you have nothing to back your claim. You must be Pro Test. Gee I would never have suspected - (sarcasm)

[boneillus]

I think a debate would be a good thing, and it's a shame you're not effective in getting it, or even a decent interview.

Vivisection is a terrible British word; and in America, its a cheap misnomer. Vivisection means to cut any life into sections. I have never done that, and there are few cases where it is warranted. Pain is warranted in even fewer.

Animal welfare is too important to be in the hands of irrational fundamentalists. I wish more scientists would engage the masses on this.

[corycatlady]

@boneillus Actually I was effective in getting a debate to occour which aired on Go Vegan Radio Labor Day Weekend between Dr Ray Greek and X Head Researcher of Allergan Pharmacueticals. I am not for animal welfare. I am for total abolishment of animal experimentation for both ethical and scientific reasons.

[corycatlady]

@corycatlady Yeah, the debate I put together was aired on the radio, Labor Day Weekend 2003. The following December I was unreasonably injured at UCLA while asking UCLA why they refuse to debate animal experimentation. I represented myself in a lawsuit against UCLA. Check out the cover up UCLA pulled on me at my myspace page, myspace/uclacoverup.

[ShroedingerWatcher]

@boneillus "Vivisection" applies to all forms of animal research regardless if cutting is done or not. And the methods never changed since then, no matter what you or Pro-Test or whoever vivisection lobby want people to believe.

"animal researchers" hate the word vivisector, vivisection because they know its true, obvious. But they must keep denying it so they can't keep that programming in their heads going.

[corycatlady]

Boneillus, I am an activist, not a professional interviewer. Perhas you are? Who have YOU ever interviewed to make such judgements? The fact is, UCLA has not debated animal experimentation in over 20 years, end of story. Correcting my spelling, oh please. You probably torture animals all day and need to attack me because I speak the truth... NO DEBATES, go F yourself pro vivisection person. Vivisection is nothing but torture and fraud. By the way, it wasn't easy to get this interview so there!

[boneillus]

This is really a terrible interview. Your questions are not interview questions, and your desire to "debate" (which actually, in your case would be to constantly pass moral judgement) comes through with every pseudo-question. Also, your ignorance comes through with every pseudo-question and the large amount of spelling errors on your page (it's informant, not informent). And that is not a moral judgement: unfortunately, ignorance is a common reality.

[ShroedingerWatcher]

Ah the name of the one against animal research Pietro Croce, his book:

Vivisection or Science an investigation into testing drugs and safeguarding health.

Yeah I have that book, very well written, no vivisector can beat it because he knows all about animal experimentation and how vivisectors think. A highly recommended book among many others. Can be found on Amazon or the "Hans Ruesch Centre" site if anyone doesn't yet know that...

[shadysawires]

Great work ,Shady...Egypt