Quantcast

«

»

Jul 17 2011

Dear Camille Marino, You are a horrible animal and a horrible person

Dear Camille Marino


I officially declare victory. You have shown your true colours as a human being, and I am embarrassed to share the same species as you. Your attitude to humanity is toxic and you aren’t a revolutionary but a terrorist and a hypocrite. Feeding of our progress only to condemn it.


“as is quite obvious, i have no time or energy to waste on you and the self-serving oblivion from where your disjointed ramblings emanate.
 
however, in this one instance, i will take the time to address you with civility and sincerity.”
Sometimes poor decisions in life manifest themselves in
questionable tattoos before they manifest in
errors in philosophy.

You say that you have no time to waste on me, but I say this is because as I am a harder target to deal with than the students you normally terrorise. I defend my field far better than you attack it. I have stated that there is no better way at the moment than animal testing for all it’s flaws. You wish it to be stopped but haven’t provided a single alternative instead hiding behind rhetoric and good old fashioned anger. You don’t answer you deflect the question with threats of violence and property damage like your hero, Walter Edmund Bond.


You aren’t educating anyone, you are threatening. You leave the teachers because they can defend themselves against your clumsy jabs. You leave out the grad students because they would simply rip your arguments to shreds. Instead you target first year undergraduates fresh out of high school simply because they are incapable of defending themselves and because you can drum up support from the non scientific community around them who fail to realise where their lifestyles come from the hard work of others and that without those biologists many of their lifestyles are completely unfeasible.

You have offered civility but it is impossible to be civil with a terrorist. You may as well ask us to be civil with Osama but frankly madam you are a grade A lunatic. I was civil as my posts repeatedly explain medical experimentation. I knew very well that you will not listen to them. You are no different from the creationist, the religious fundamentalist or any merchant of pseudoscience. No explanation I will give will suffice until the day you require our help and every single word you have stated against my field is proven wrong.

While you may wish for our deaths or injuries to save animals we don’t wish for yours. We won’t refuse you treatment no matter what you have said or done to us. That’s because we take our oaths to human beings very seriously.




Apparently you survived inspite of this rather than
because of this. Man apparently we should just
not have ICUs.

“i died in a motorcycle accident in 1993. i was resuscitated yet remained comatose for the better part of a month. when i finally regained consciousness, i was a complete quadriplegic — unable to move a pinky or a toe. i was unable to speak or see, and every involuntary motor function was dependent on machines and round the clock nurses to intercede with tubes to do everything from breathe for me to feed me. i was 28 years old and wholly unable to communicate. but my mind remained intact as i listened to the plans being made to have me live out the remainder of my life in an institution. 

i was confined to a bed for three solid months, imprisoned in my own body for far longer, and didn’t even begin to walk again for an entire year. i lived with people in every state of injury, sickness, and debilitation. i have NEVER met a single person in a truly desperate and dire situation who would not rather volunteer themselves for experimental treatments than wait decades for some pseudo-scientist to continue to torture innocent animals pretending to be on the verge of some earth-shattering breakthrough for mankind”

The man has achieved more with his brain and a single
finger than we have with our health. Also he has
an amazing sense of humour.

Your story begs questions. A quadriplegic is an individual with a complete trans-section of the spinal cord resulting in a loss of motor function. One tends to not be cured of this condition, not without a magic in any case. To this date no quadriplegics have ever regained function to the point where they are walking around and threatening biologists and doctors. Christopher Reeves and Stephen Hawkings are quadriplegics. You are and were not. If you were and were cured by science then we would be throwing parades for your doctors and Stephen Hawkings would be on Strictly Come Dancing learning the Riverdance and possibly picking up a rap career as E=MC Hawkings. Hell Christopher Reeves would have starred in Superman Returns rather than having died so tragically while hoping for a cure while confined to either a bed or a wheelchair.

“i was confined to a bed for three solid months, imprisoned in my own body for far longer, and didn’t even begin to walk again for an entire year. i lived with people in every state of injury, sickness, and debilitation. i have NEVER met a single person in a truly desperate and dire situation who would not rather volunteer themselves for experimental treatments than wait decades for some pseudo-scientist to continue to torture innocent animals pretending to be on the verge of some earth-shattering breakthrough for mankind”

Shenanigans has been called!

You may have been in a coma, but my biggest doubt comes from the fact that you seem to have made a full recovery from it with no ill effect. I have an uncle who had a 3 week coma and that ended up with him being spastic (the medical kind) and unable to walk or talk properly. Any injury strong enough to place you in a 3 month coma is strong enough to really scramble your brain. I am calling shenanigans on this. SHENANIGANS!


You have shown a distinct lack of understanding of how animal experimentation functions. We test animals to destruction. We cut them open to see how they work, we make things go wrong on purpose to see how they go wrong and we see if we can fix the things that have gone wrong. We test to destruction to find out mechanisms of things and how they work. If it works we don’t simply say “well done mouse”, we dissect it to see how it worked and it’s mechanisms. If we think a gene produces a specific protein, we knock out that gene and see if the animal produces the protein with or without the gene. As we do this we slowly build up a picture and we find out how proteins are formed which relates to a condition. It’s absolutely necessary because medical research doesn’t take place like in CSI or a science fiction lab. The TV portrayal of research is simply not true. The TV portrayal of nerds especially is kind of irritating too, most of us aren’t like the cast of the big bang. 

If we are experimenting with a disease we also have to kill the animal to see how disease affects various organs as most animals are intrinsically attached to them. We simply cannot infect people with diseases and then take kidneys and lungs, livers and spleens out without killing the person.
For instance all drugs that are tested on the brain have to have brain chemistry analysed and the way that is done is to actually kill the animal and take sections of the brain before the activity has stopped. I am sure guillotining a human to take sections of their brain will not have too many volunteers. Atleast not in the quantity we require for research.

We often study the physiology of animals and the pathology of various diseases. How would we study blindness in children? It would require knowing which kids are blind beforehand which is impossible as we aren’t mind readers and it’s difficult to diagnose blindness in infants. Or it would involve blinding some kittens and seeing how their optical cortex develops through cutting open their brains at various stages of development. It’s easier to do that then “blind some children” because “children are people”, cats are not. It’s easier to simply suture a kitten’s eyes shut and then observe the atrophy of the cortex than do so to infants (kittens are born blind).

Then the research was done to see if we could reverse the atrophy. To give sight to the blind and sound to the deaf since it turns out that lack of stimulus is one of the issues leading to cochlear implantation aimed at babies.

The research in question has been used to treat congenital blindness providing sight to children born blind. It’s also been used to detect hearing losses and correct that via cochlear implantation at a young age. It’s incredibly life changing procedures that mean children that are born deaf and blind can hear and see.
No parent would volunteer their child to be blinded or deafened for this research. No parent of a blind or a deaf child would volunteer their child to be dissected for this. There is no other choice but animal experimentation. In most animal experiments a similar dilemma is faced. However most parents would volunteer their blind or deaf child to receive the treatment we come up with from this experiment with the warning that the treatment is experimental and we don’t know if it would work or not. Remember half the people who sign on for the experiment won’t have the treatment as a control to see the placebo effect. Statistics are compiled meticulously at every stage to show efficiency and effect before this treatment is okayed for general usage.
“the reason you do not experiment on people who would gladly volunteer themselves is because some speciesist human has decided that it is unethical and the NIH only funds animal torture. so human experimentation would not be nearly as lucrative.”

Under the sea! Under the sea! Down were it’s wetter
here it is better take it from me! 

Naturally, you don’t care about these people. To you the kittens are more valuable than the people it saves. The NIH does fund human experimentation but only after we figure out how things work in animals because it’s illegal to kill people solely to find out how things work because it’s against human law and it’s also highly unethical. We execute people who do these things, and the name Josef Mengele springs to mind. Yes it is “speciest” but frankly if given sufficient incentive you would eat meat. And it’s no more or less speciest about your follower’s consumption of plant and fungal life or their abhorrence of certain kinds of animal life. I mean clean drinking water is practically the death of billions of organisms but you don’t seem to mind their deaths.


It stems from the idea that we like fluffy animals. No one is standing up and defending hagfish or lampreys (nor should they! Lampreys are a pest in some parts of the Great Lakes.), no one is suggesting we leave the cockroaches and rats that plague our cities alone, because rat infestations do not end well for human beings. But a lab rat is a fluffy animal. It’s white for heaven’s sake! As are guinea pigs, but it’s hard to stand up for sea urchins or drosophila or c. elegans. The latest drive to denounce medical research in the UK is by attacking the British Heart Foundation’s Mending Broken Hearts campaign. The BHF’s actual adverts are to encourage people to realise that there is real progress in the field. Animal liberation’s attitude is that this progress is selfish because humans want to live in the place of a few fish. It’s easy to say that when you aren’t dying of a heart issue yourself. Wanting to live is not selfish, it’s human. Nihilism does not suit as a species and humans are addicted to life. It’s why we value volunteering and sacrifice so much. 

“now i want you to understand me and understand me good. the only reason i am a high-functioning individual once again is because NO disinterested medical “professional” with a god complex has the power to dictate my future. i didn’t care what they said or thought then, and i don’t care what delusional nonsense any of you spout now. you are all irrelevant blood-money sadistic opportunists and merit no consideration for your educated guessing or illogical rationalizations.”

I take it back, 3 months of coma may have affected you in some other more subtle way. You aren’t a high functioning individual, you are kind of an insane and dangerous person. And if your story is even remotely true then you are a high functioning individual because doctors and nurses used medical technology developed on animals to ensure you stayed alive after your motorcycle accident. Your future was dictated by medical professionals despite what you think .


The fact remains that our illogical rationalisation and educated guessing saved your life. You are alive to sprout your luddite nonsense at us because of us. It’s not delusional, this is the truth by your own admission that doctors saved your life (even if I think it’s not possible to recover from quadriplegia and that you are making stuff up or are misrepresenting a more serious condition.).

“and, btw, if i were ever to meet a quadriplegic who would rather volunteer an innocent animal to suffer than volunteer themselves, i would personally throw them out of their wheelchair, kick their arroganct speciesist ass into the gutter, and film them as they lay there helpless in the sewers like the waste of humanity that they are.
then i would upload the video to nio and eat carrot chips with humus as i enjoyed watching them die a slow and torturous death over and over and over again.”

I actually have posted Camille’s words here because I am sure she will delete or try to change them. She tried to weasel out of her actual threats against medical and biology students when she first came to my attention but this is stored for posterity. I Avicenna, hereby declare that these words are the true testament of Camille Marino, owner of Negotiation is Over.


This is a threat, an actual one against someone disabled who wants a cure. It shows what kind of person you are. A bad one. An embarrassment to humanity as a whole.


Even if you injured yourself killing a quadriplegic in such a manner I would save your life. Then I would send you to jail for being a criminal. I may be a an arrogant human-centric blood profiteer with a god complex but I  have the grace to know the difference between right and wrong. You however are wrong.


Take a look around you. Almost every single person here is here because of medical technology and training developed on animals (How many of us were born in hospitals or were delivered by trained medical professionals?).


“now, please don’t bother me again.

you know nothing. you are a sadistic piece of arrogant shit. and you annoy me.

camille

I maybe those things but I am not the one who hypocritically took advantage of medical science to live while simultaneously mocking those advancements. I am not the one who bandies my IQ as some sort of power level nor have I stated that I am a high functioning individual. I am not the one who has threatened to kill quadriplegics should they utilise medical treatment developed through experimentation.


You don’t annoy me, you scare me. That there are people out there who have to deal with your nonsense in person.


Your’s Sincerely,


Avicenna (esq.)


One of these things is a toothy parasite spreading ill
health and disease while feeding of more productive
and healthy members of society.
The other is a lovecraftian horror that lives in the sea.

13 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Cj_myers_7

    i totally support camille marino

  2. 2
    Avicenna

    Why? Her actual viewpoint is harmful to society as a whole and she is kind of a hypocrite considering she herself admits that she is alive due to technology tested on animals. Threatening students is particularly vile and no different from any terrorist.

    All the while she has not once contributed to reducing animal usage in laboratories by developing alternatives or by even volunteering herself for tests (not that we would accept her. She appears anaemic and that would rule her out of most testing.)

    Avicenna

  3. 3
    Lord Victor 'Bones' Bishington

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmXyf2eOZyY

    This pretty much sums up my view of this type of animal liberation.

    However, I do think that an overall goal of our society should be the reduction in harm (both physical and mental) of all sentient beings (I'm sure you'd agree with me). That being said, I see sentience as more of a sliding scale than a distinct line in the sand, so using a less sentient species to increase the well-being of a more sentient species (i.e. humans) isn't a huge problem in my book, especially when all precautions are taken to minimize the suffering of said animals (hell, in Australia we are required to anaesthetise and humanely euthanise crusteasans).

  4. 4
    Jr

    I predict one day soon, someone will shoot Camile in the face. To be clear here, I am neither wishing this nor advocating it, only making a prediction based on the fact that people that promote, advocate, and religionize a violent philosophy are more likely to be a victim of their own tenets at the end. Just interview any of the numerous inmates in any prison system. Proportionally speaking, a drug dealer is more likely to die by the gun than any random person is at risk of being an innocent unintended victim of a drive-by shooting. Keep juggling hand grenades, hang out with people who juggle with hand grenades–both of whom strongly espouse an almost paranoid schizophrenic, self-messianistic egotistical world view that is intolerant of other differing world view and opinions–than one of those hand grenades is going to go off, sooner or later, and take the jugglers out. The whole "radical animal rights" movement is like a retarded version of al-Qaeda (who let's face it are pretty inept themselves, thankfully). The only real difference is that the radical groups are basically a bunch of pissed-off white middle class folk with clearly unresolved emotional issues that principally center on an ill-attempt to feel empowered and worthy in order to compensate and assuage their even more evident low self-esteem issues. Maybe mommy didn't hug them enough times when they were little. Maybe daddy wasn't around or paid them any attention. Maybe daddy instead was overly attentive, if you get the unsaid implication and left poor Camille feeling angry and lonely as an adult, and feeling that a cat and dog are more worthy of a human. Maybe it is none of these things or all of these things. Whatever the causal root, it is clear there is a deep emotional wound at play and what Camille is unwittingly projecting in her declarations that a non-human animal is better than a human is but her own feelings of insignificance and unworthiness. Somewhere in her past, she has been made to feel like an unworthy animal. So it is no wonder then that she would be angry with those that treat animals, well, like animals–and want to see harm done to those humans. She is internalizing her own pain and anthropomorphizing it unto animals and has found in the scientist (the cold and soulless "vivisector") a potent symbolism of her victimization in which to retaliate and avenge her injured past. Make no mistake about this: This is not so much about a genuine held belief as it is a convenient avenue to vent and is nothing more than group therapy, only forced on unwilling participants. No one wants to take up arms because a cow was turned into hamburger. They might get disgusted and feel a moral imperative to speak out against it, but never to the point of wanting to kill or harm people because of this. No, people want to harm other people because somewhere down the road of time, they themselves were hurt by a human (the cold, soulless "vivisector"). At the end the victim often becomes the cliche in following in the steps of his or her victimizer. Yes, it is indeed Camille who is the cold, indifferent "vivisector" and she is pissed about something other than a cow being made into chopped sirloin–and someone's going to pay. As the old Chinese proverb had it: Those that seek revenge must dig two graces. And there goes a pin on one of those grenades. It's only a matter of time.

  5. 5
    PTfS

    All these communications from Camille Marino prove is that she is bitter, pathetic and impotent, and her attempts to inspire hate and fear are all intended to distract others from becoming aware of these facts – they are the ultimate defense mechanisms. She is a washed up loser, who has never contributed anything positive to the world. To avoid the emotional pain she would undoubtedly suffer if she were to confront her own waste of a life, she tries to tear others down.

    I understand why she inspires such anger and frustration in "normal" human beings; her behavior is psychopathy to the extreme. But what we should feel for her is nothing but pity. She is a poor, corrupt person filled with hate and sadness and grief.

  6. 6
    Avicenna

    The issue is also she harasses an arguably unprotected portion of the scientific community and "it's one of those hate movements" that sometimes goes too far.

  7. 7
    Guest

    Victor: you talk about a sliding scale of sentience. What does it matter even if there is a scale – sentience is sentience. You either are or you aint. Whenever you introduce these sorts of scales you have the freedom to relegate *any* group – species, race, sex, etc. – to where you want to for your own ends. 1930's Germany being a prime example.

    Further, how can you exactly "minimise the suffering of said animals" when most use, by it's very own design and nature, will necessarily inflict massive amounts of harm and ultimately death? The only way to minimise suffering is to not use these animals at all.

    Not trying to sway anyone's opinion on C M here – just saying..

  8. 8
    Lord Victor 'Bones' Bishington

    "you talk about a sliding scale of sentience. What does it matter even if there is a scale – sentience is sentience. You either are or you aint. Whenever you introduce these sorts of scales you have the freedom to relegate *any* group – species, race, sex, etc. – to where you want to for your own ends. 1930's Germany being a prime example".

    The problem you describe with my 'scale' system equally applies to the other 'you either or are you aren't'; the issue isn't to do with what system you use, but how you define sentience. If you choose to define sentience in a different way, you can include or exclude any group you want.

    There is no simple test or sharp line in the sand that seperates sentient from non-sentient species. Hence why I go with a scale system; creatures that are clearly non-sentient (bacteria, plants etc.) recieve little to no moral consideration in my system, creatures that are clearly sentient recieve the most (humans, primates etc.) and creatures that are in between get an inbetween amount.

    Further, how can you exactly "minimise the suffering of said animals" when most use, by it's very own design and nature, will necessarily inflict massive amounts of harm and ultimately death?

    How can you not? Can you honestly not tell how humane treatment of animals before killing them for food is better than treating them inhumanely? That is minimizing the suffering. It may not be minimizing it to a standard you agree with, but it is vastly better than the alternative.

    And I fully support the development of technologies that could be used to replace animals; in vivo meat, computer models to accurately simulate human bodies etc. But we aren't there yet and should continue to use animals until we are.

  9. 9
    Guest

    Hi Victor. Many thanks for your courteous and reasoned response.

    You say: "There is no simple test or sharp line in the sand that seperates sentient from non-sentient species."

    I ask you: Is there any question in *your* mind, *whatsoever*, that all the animals we currently use for vivisection, food, amusement, etc. are clearly entient? Ie: Rabbits, cattle, pigs, birds, etc.? If not, why then use a scale to determine whether they deserve moral consideration? (If you do in fact believe that rabbits, pigs, etc. are not sentient or less sentient than humans then please provide your definition of sentience).

    Moreover, if sentience is defined quantitatively rather than qualitatatively, can you not then extend your reasoning towards humans? Clearly there are some people who are smarter / more alert / more sensitive to pain / whatever than others. If you use a sliding scale what then stops you from exploiting the "inferior" people? And particularly the "grossly inferior" such as the retarded?

    You ask: "Can you honestly not tell how humane treatment of animals before killing them for food is better than treating them inhumanely?"

    I fully agree with what you say here. Surely it is better not to beat someone when you break into their house than just breaking into their house. However I disagree that this is minimising harm as a general matter; This is minimising harm only as far as *you want* to minimise harm. "Reducing" harm rather than "minimising" may be a better term for this idea, but reducing of what and by how much?

    In no part of this "reducing harm" process are you showing any consideration for the interests of the subject being harmed above or equal to the interest you show in your own gain from the use of the subject. Hence as much harm "as is required" is applied and this is at best a slippery slope.

    You say: "It may not be minimizing it to a standard you agree with, but it is vastly better than the alternative."

    What about a much better alternative that does not care about any standards – yours or mine – apart from a fundamental right for any sentient being to not to be harmed for the gain of another. We apply (at least nominally) these rights to all humans today. These rights were not universally applied to Aboriginals or other black races until only a couple of generations ago. Similarly we have denied this right to many groups in the past: women, serfs, etc. Today we are stuck at applying these to other species.

    You say: "But we aren't there yet and should continue to use animals until we are."

    As an empirical matter there may be benefit to the human race by exploiting non-humans. But I argue that, if we take a consequentalist position and consider only the outcome, it would actually be more beneficial for the human race to exploit other humans. Humans are *the* perfect test subject in experiments. However, we do not do that as a moral matter. And therein is the issue: that we extend moral consideration towards humans but not non-humans.

    You argue that you apply *some* moral consideration to what you determine *less* sentient beings. But I contend that morality cannot be applied in part and at will in that fashion – and that this is a form of fundamentally objectionable moral relativism. I would be most willing.to engage with you in a discussion about that if you so desire.

    Apologies for the longish post!

    Cheers, Kris.

  10. 10
    Lord Victor 'Bones' Bishington

    To be honest, this topic is so far down on my list of priorities that I do not wish to continue (simply as a matter of time constraints rather than lack of interest). You have made some clear and valid points that I do agree with, I just do not have the time to engage in a discussion. I thank you for the offer and the polite reply; it is such a rarity these days to find someone on the internet who disagrees with you, yet remains civil.

  11. 11
    Guest

    Sure Victor.

    If I may add just one further thing :

    Animal exploitation for medical science may well be the only form of animal exploitation with some usefulness. Not to say that it's necessarily right or justified – just that people may be beneficiaries as a result of it. On the other hand the most gross exploitation of animals is done purely for our pleasure, entertainment or convenience. And for these frivolities over 50 billion land animals and over a trillion aquatic animals suffer and die each year.

    It is only understandable that anyone not "into animal issues" will be largely unaware and uninterested in this. And not at all attempting to cast a moral judgement (for heaven knows how many outstanding moral issues we *all* have), but this is a matter of fundamental justice that surely deserves serious attention.

    Good day to you.
    Kris.

  12. 12
    Gradstudent

    This is so spot on! The psychological perspective is very perceptive and informative of understanding these pathologically minded people. Thanks for the post!

  13. 13
    Just a man

    Bitter and pathetic. Certainly.

    Impotent? No more so than a rabid dog.

    She has the potential to cause genuine harm. Harm to, at the least, decent and innocent people, and quite possibly to people who may produce genuine advancements in medical science that will save lives and improve the quality of human beings.

    Like a rabid dog, she needs to be removed from the streets.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite="" class=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>