Michele Bachmann: pseudo-scientist and anti-vaxxer »« Stephen Jay Gould

Say something kind to Ashley Marie Chavez-Rubertt

She’s an up and coming scientist, a young biology student at the University of Florida, and she has been targeted by the animal rights radicals and human-hating monsters at NIO for harassment as a “career animal mutilator”. They’ve posted links to her email address and facebook on a page that conveniently also provides a diagram on how to make a molotov cocktail. They also declare that “She has now forfeited all of the rights that she denies her victims”. Her crime seems to be that she actually listened to NIO, thought about their position and hers, and disagreed with them:

Your website seems to indicate otherwise — look, I can appreciate what you do and I appreciate the fact you have your own opinions. Really, we need more opinionated people in the world. The fact of the matter is I myself have examined the evidence and I have already made a decision for myself.

For this, she’s targeted for “Phase II”, whatever that is. I don’t want to know.

They’ve posted contact information for her, but I hope she’s sensible and just shuts down that email account. These people are rabid fanatics, terrorists plain and simple.

(Also on Sb)

Comments

  1. anuran says

    Some months back when you first mentioned NIO I looked at their website and called the local FBI office. The agent to whom I talked looked at the site while we were talking and said he hadn’t heard of this one before. But he called it “really interesting” and said it was worth kicking upstairs to the people who investigate domestic terrorism. A day later their site had instructions on how to deal with Federal agents asking questions.

    This is a good thing.

    Flying While Brown Terrorism

    Death Threats Against People Who Disagree With Your Politics == Terrorism

  2. David Marjanović, OM says

    They also declare that “She has now forfeited all of the rights

    They keep using that word.

    I do not think it means what they think it means.

  3. Phro says

    It’s really sad that someone who is dedicating their life to research and medicine (I’m assuming a bit about this, since I’m not sure what exactly she studies or wants to do) has to endure the harassment of people with such horrific ideals. I wish her the best, for whatever that’s worth.

    And I hope the FBI is seriously investigating this, as Anuran implied they might be.

  4. Gord O'Mitey says

    Ashley, you’re obviously a very intelligent, thoughtful, considerate person, doing work for the benefit of people, or perhaps even for other animals. Any sane person would support you. You have my best wishes.

  5. Classical Cipher, Murmur Muris, OM says

    I’m not sure people should be visiting that site directly considering that these people are actively dangerous.

  6. Predator Handshake says

    I sent her a supportive message on facebook; hopefully she’ll see it before she’s forced to deactivate her account by these awful people.

  7. Gus Snarp says

    I’m not sure what to do. Am I to send her a supportive message via Facebook or Email? But PZ has chosen not to further publicize that information directly, and I’m never going to click a link to NIO’s website again. So I guess I’ll just say it here: Keep up the good work, Ashley, but don’t just brush this aside: contact the local police and the FBI with this harassment. What they are doing is illegal, and you need to be protected.

  8. Jim says

    Ugh. On the one hand, I kind of want to see what sort of reaction they had to her. On the other, going to sites like NIO always makes me feel like I need to take a shower afterwards.

  9. John says

    I would highly suggest, if you intend to comment on their site’s blog post, that you do so through a proxy as your IP is probably captured upon comment submission. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, then it’s probably best that you just stay off of their site completely. There is no good reason to give any of the folks that run that site a way to identify you as an enemy.

  10. Thomathy, now gayer and atheister says

    For those who don’t want to visit NOI, the post about this young woman is the same short, threatening post they always write. It’s nothing of note itself. The fact that they’re targeting an 18 year old for the harassment is notable, but then I really don’t frequent their site.

    Does anyone know if the NIO harasses internationally? I wouldn’t mind levelling a complaint against the site with American authorities, if only I knew that they targeted Canadians.

  11. unbound says

    NIO seems to be the work of Dr. Steven Best…activist wacko who decries hate in others, but fails to see the hate that he engenders.

  12. says

    NIO is run by someone called Camille Marino. She makes a habit of threatening scientists from behind her keyboard, but the police don’t seem particularly interested. Sound familiar?

    PZ, you have the power to instigate a campaign to persuade the police to start taking her threats seriously. Perhaps it is time to institutionalize Camille Marino?

  13. Bonnie says

    While I abhor the fact that we use animals in research & know that for some studies it isn’t necessary, I abhor threats & violence toward people even more! Shame on this organization, they should be investigated & possibly prosecuted by the FBI! Stay strong Ashley, we support you!

  14. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Why aren’t the NIO folks volunteering to be guinea pigs to replace the poor animals? But they never want their life/health on the line, just other humans like prisoners, instead of the animals. The reek of hypocrisy from their attitudes reaches Antarctica.

  15. Bernard Bumner says

    Her crime seems to be that she actually listened to NIO, thought about their position and hers, and disagreed with them:…

    It seems that Ashley made the mistake of assuming that animal rights terrorists are capable of rational disagreement. They are not. They are, as we have seen time and again, dangerous, antiscientific, absolutists who are immune to the idea that vivisection and animal experimentation is anything other than genocidal.

    We don’t need opinionated people as much as we need people who are passionate (but rational). Ashley, I would presume, is quite passionate about her chosen field and has innocently mistaken for a similar thing the unhinged fervour of the animal rights extremists. That is not her fault, because these groups like to hide their violent intent behind a mask of humane concern. They pretend to engage in debate simply so that they can attack.

    I sincerely hope that Ashley is able to persue her career unhindered.

    One thing that has been shown in the UK by their lack of direct opposition to organisations like Pro-Test is that these groups like to choose apparently vulnerable targets. They will attack isolated individuals, but aren’t interested in taking on the big fights (they have been notably silent on the meat industry, for instance). I would suggest that Ashley pass on as much information as possible to her University, to law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and also that she forms contacts with pro-testing organisations who can give good advice from experience on dealing with these threats.

  16. cactusren says

    To those who don’t wish to go to NIOs website, the good news is that so far all the comments on that page are in support of Ashley.

  17. cactusren says

    For those of you who don’t want to go to NIO’s website (and who can blame you?), the good news is that so far all the comments there are in support of Ashley.

  18. Brownian says

    While I abhor the fact that we use animals in research & know that for some studies it isn’t necessary, I abhor threats & violence toward people even more!

    Ironically enough, a visit to NIO’s website has managed to cure me of such silly pro-human sentimentality, but not in the way they intended.

  19. julian says

    Few things are as disgusting as a cowardly bully who cloaks themself in righteousness and uses legal loopholes who harrass and intimidate those they view as vulnerable.

    Ms. Chavez-Rubertt you have my best wishes. You don’t deserve to have to put up with those thugs.

  20. Suzanne says

    Hi Ashley, sorry you’re having a rough time with these folks. Thank you for expanding your knowledge–and therefore humanity’s knowledge–of biology, lessons we all need very badly.

    I know that you were just expressing a deep sense of cognitive dissonance when you posted to that website. I’m sure you’re an animal lover, and sometimes we get a little huffy and rash when this conflict seems so personal.

    What you probably don’t realize yet is that your degree is useful really only to commerce, which has a bad track record for humane treatment of animals. In order to make money with biology, you’ll probably need to go to work for a company that uses lots of animals in ways that you will find repugnant. You will either leave the field, or become hardened to the suffering you cause.

    Your only real hope for biology without exploiting animals is to study extra hard and marry into money so that you can teach biology instead of do biology. Capitalism has ruined many otherwise-good professions like this.

  21. Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies says

    Suzanne,
    Congrats! That was the stupidest thing I’ve read so far today. (And that’s pretty impressive, considering I’m at work.)

  22. Thomathy, now gayer and atheister says

    Suzanne, how’s the Kool-Aid? You should drink some more, you’re not as stupid as you could be.

  23. Cthulhoo says

    Suzanne,

    and how exactly do you propose biological research is done on the basis of which Ashley should be teaching biology? A mind meld?

  24. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Suzanne, what are you doing or funding to replace the need for animal testing with alternative tests? I bet nothing but verbiage. Put your money where your mouth is, or shut up.

  25. Scott says

    I found it very chilling that they say that the time for rational discourse is over, and that only direct emotional appeals will be used from now on.

    I work at university med school that does a lot of research, and we’ve been harassed by these kooks before. I wonder how they reconcile the problem of carnivorous animals.

  26. Ing says

    Your only real hope for biology without exploiting animals is to study extra hard and marry into money so that you can teach biology instead of do biology. Capitalism has ruined many otherwise-good professions like this.

    Translation: Your only hope for using biology as a carrer is to spread your legs you silly girl! Let the men do the real work while you sit back and cuddle puppies.

    Blah

  27. azkyroth says

    Given the anti-leftist bias in this country, I’m mystified as to why these pieces of shit aren’t all in jail. (Whereas I understand, in a sad way, why the up and coming Tim McVeighs mostly aren’t.)

  28. says

    @azkyroth

    That would mean someone would have to get close enough to the smelly hippies to touch them. I presume they’re like sloths and covered in a fine layer of moss and mold (Gluten-free of course. )

  29. Ms. Daisy Cutter says

    Suzanne, are you with PeTA? Because not only do you tell anti-science lies, you seem to be perfectly fine with sexism in service to your cause.

  30. mister_roboto says

    I work in a biomedical research facility at a University that has animals in research, and we always have our run-ins with these groups. Although we haven’t had specific instances of students being targets- it does strike me as odd (but obvious/easy as why they do it), I’m VERY sure she isn’t the only undergrad at the University who uses animals in research, and why they picked her specifically is what I’m curious about. Social networking? Or the tried and true “red-tape-to-death” FOIA request and her info was in there?

    We warn all personnel who work within our facility to keep any sort of social media set to “as private as possible” for things like this.

    I saw it on the science blogs site in the comments section, where someone posted a flyer asking for $100 to students to give up info on other students who use animals in research at the school, and asked if that was legal. Yes it is. PETA offers up thousands of dollars for information. It may be against the specific universities code of conducts etc, but is legal. And if it’s a public university, then it’s somewhat-accessible public information.

  31. says

    Given the anti-leftist bias in this country, I’m mystified as to why these pieces of shit aren’t all in jail.

    What makes you think this has something to do with “leftism”? The political left is about doing what’s best for people. What these individuals’ politics are like outside of not liking experimentation on animals is completely unknown to us and also irrelevant.

  32. mister_roboto says

    In a news article for the local paper awhile ago, about animal testing in medical research, in the comments section (which no one should ever read, no matter what new outlet) there were a lot of left-wing comments about how it all needs to stop, and the defenders of the research were very right-wing in nature, “your life or an animals?”. Then going over to another article in the same news outlet, a pro-research article about an NIH grant being awarded had a turn around in the views of the commenters. The left commenters were arguing for pro-science, while the right commenters were very anti-science and throwing around the “god” word a lot.

    There isn’t much of a difference in the Left and Right for the most part really. I’ll listen to anyone with a well rationed thought or viewpoint (which I don’t have to agree with, but I’ll listen to you), extremists vs extremists is one of the most futile things possible. A left wacko is still a wacko, just as a right wing wacko is a wacko.

  33. says

    Ing @ 32 “My guess is brain damage from years of inhaling formaldehyde fumes in vein effort to free the trapped fetal pigs.”

    You win one sniny new intertubes!

  34. Suresh says

    I do not surprised by PZ, the speciest. You even called Peter Singer a bad controversial person. PZ, your morale may be higher than religious fanatics , but you still a blind speciest, and pretending that all the animals in the research labs are treated as you imagine.
    You imagination is just as like christians who think because of religion everything is okey and good, but reality is different.

  35. Suresh says

    PZ you have some hypocrisy in your belly. You tell all those hilly billy little stories how ethically you treat animals in your lab, and how every one does the same.
    But, the freaking world is not what you imagine.

    Look at this news and video. http://www.3news.co.nz/FULL-VIDEO-Lab-chimps-see-sunlight-for-first-time/tabid/313/articleID/225047/Default.aspx

    You just like religious fanatics, who think that religion is good, its brings lot of good, its not like what atheist think, but reality is different, same as you think all research labs treat animals ethically and fairly, there is nothing wrong in what’s going on around the world.
    No wonder why you called Peter Singer as bad controversial person.
    Grow up PZ not just you beard.

  36. DLC says

    Ashley Marie Chavez-Rubertt : Carry on! keep at your research !
    Keep a stiff upper lip and ignore the idiots !
    Best Wishes.
    D

  37. mister_roboto says

    @ #46:

    No, his description is accurate and spot on.

    Also: “Grow up PZ not just your beard” TOTALLY needs to be on a tee shirt.

  38. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Grow up PZ not just you beard.

    I expect to see you the loudmouth go to the medical testing community and volunteeer to be tested in place of the animal. Put up or shut the fuck up as a hypocrite. In other words, you need to grow up and accept accountablity for your beliefs. You are the one who is ethically challenged, just like Singer.

  39. says

    Suresh, how nice of you to endorse terrorism directed at a young college woman.

    So, I’m assuming you do the ethical thing and refuse any medical treatment that involved animal testing?

  40. dropkickpa says

    @ #46

    That video isn’t showing what you think it is. When chimps bare their teeth, it is because they are extremely stressed out and scared, not smiling. The hugging is a comfort seeking behavior for a scared chimp, not what you and the video’s posters seem to believe. If all the chimps were indeed over 30 years old, that is an extremely stressful situation for them to be in, as the older a chimp gets the more it tends to be neophobic.

    Try to actually learn something about the biology and behavior of animals instead of preaching about them, you would then at least pick better visual examples for your flawed arguments.

  41. says

    You just like religious fanatics, who think that religion is good, its brings lot of good, its not like what atheist think, but reality is different, same as you think all research labs treat animals ethically and fairly, there is nothing wrong in what’s going on around the world.

    How can you be so concerned for fruit flies but not for the poor scarecrows?

  42. Old Rockin' Dave says

    Here is what the site claims to be about:
    “The philosophy is simple yet profound; anyone who engages in the horrific treatment of any sentient being should no longer expect to remain anonymous. They and their family, friends, neighbors and colleagues should be made to face the awful truth.”
    Any sentient being. Ashley is certainly a sentient being. Notice that Camille is silent about Syria, Aceh, the Amazon, North Korea, etc. She could put her “action” skills to use sabotaging Syrian tanks! But then, military dictators use real bullets and Camille could get hurt instead of simply being fined by a judge who can’t be bothered with “petty” crimes. I think the question recently raised about animal-rights terrorists is a good one: Why don’t they ever go up to Hell’s Angels and castigate them for their leather jackets?

  43. says

    I think the question recently raised about animal-rights terrorists is a good one: Why don’t they ever go up to Hell’s Angels and castigate them for their leather jackets?

    Better question. Since if someone benefits from participating in a crime we punish them in the US…what legal punishment should we give to someone who uses medicine tested on animals to save their life?

    Prison? Fine? Death?

  44. neuroturtle says

    Hmm, maybe I should stop experimenting on animals. When your child dies of asthma, you can take the blame for it. Those mice (who are albino and could never survive in the wild, btw) will totally thank you for it! Thanks for sacrificing your kid for the mice!

    Oh, and the veterans will thank you, too. Our other project is on preventing PTSD… you can go explain to them personally why nobody is working on their care. Sure, they’re traumatized, but think of the mice!!!

    I have seen the light!!

    Ashley, keep on keepin’ on. We have too much to learn to bother with these people.

  45. VeganPhD says

    I have ARA friends and even consider myself one to some degree, but their lack of understanding of how science works just constantly baffles me. Alternatives don’t just appear by magic or something, and until they exist animal research is what we have and I personally support it. I used to think that they just view animals as *equal* to humans (which anomalously I don’t), but it really seems that they actually view them as superior.

    How should we send our support though? Any emails or FB messages will probably just get lost in the mountain of bullshit.

  46. says

    @Suresh

    I work in biotech so I am in and out of labs with animals all the time.
    1) not all the animals are killed after the end of the research.
    2) many of the big pharma companies work with various organisations to adopt out or send to sanctuaries their lab animals
    3) many of the people who work in the labs are animal lovers

    If you are so freaking concerned about the animals, how about you work on adopting or funding a sanctuary for the retired lab animals? By being such assholes about the whole thing, most companies are reluctant to get involved with the adoption process because they are scared of jerks like you doing something fucking stupid.

  47. James Emery says

    Woooow, they had a quotation from PZ in the right-hand sidebar when I visited! :)

    “…you are completely oblivious to the severity of the problem NIO represents.” -PZ Myers to Dr. Ray Greek (3/31/11)

  48. Athena says

    AR activists who think that threatening/killing people who experiment on/kill animals in the name of science are in the same vein as those in the anti-choice movement who kill doctors in the name of “life.” Humans are animals too, and some AR extremists don’t seem to realize this.
    As an atheist, I am concerned with anything that can suffer–not just a human with a deadly disease. And I remain unconvinced that the suffering of hundreds, if not thousands, of non-human animals is merited in order to alleviate the suffering of a handful of humans.
    While we don’t know everything about the nervous systems and capacity for suffering for all non-human animals, it seems pretty clear that most mammals–rats, cats, rabbits, dogs and non-human primates–feel pain in similar ways. And more and more research on animal behavior demonstrates that certain animals are subject to the same emotions humans are.
    It doesn’t mean everyone needs to become a vegan and oppose animal testing, but anyone who ignores the suffering of his/her fellow animals cannot be an ethical person.
    For the record, I hate PETA (its “animal shelter” has a higher kill rate than many public shelters/pounds and its founder is clearly insane and supports these AR terrorists).
    Anyone interested in a an ethical discourse on speciesism should read Peter Singer (who is also an atheist).

  49. Brandon says

    #5 – “I’m not sure people should be visiting that site directly considering that these people are actively dangerous.”

    I couldn’t disagree more. While avoiding the ire of potential terrorists is personally appealing, allowing them to single out individual researchers (or in this, students) allows them greater power than presenting a unified front. Granted, it might not be in the best interests of your own personal safety to be known to terrorist assholes, but it’s better for everyone that works in animal research if said terrorist assholes are confronted by large numbers of us, I think.

  50. mister_roboto says

    #64: I’d only suggest not visiting it at a lab or work-related computer. As many of the animal activist websites log IP addresses etc, and could pose a potential security risk to your computer network.

  51. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Anyone interested in a an ethical discourse on speciesism should read Peter Singer (who is also an atheist).

    One doesn’t have to read cranks or liberturds who believe with religious intensity their inane and unworkable ideas do discuss the ideas intelligently and see the flaws in them. Whether or not Singer is an atheist has nothing to do with his ideas. Doesn’t make them better or worse.

    Personally, I have trouble with people who say don’t do animal testing, but then don’t offer realistic and viable alternatives. The AR folks offer no realistic ways of advancing medical knowledge and treatments.

  52. says

    And I remain unconvinced that the suffering of hundreds, if not thousands, of non-human animals is merited in order to alleviate the suffering of a handful of humans.

    I know of no one in research that spends/gets funded to help a ‘handful’ of humans. It’s generally millions of humans that will benefit. Nice strawman tho, did you stuff it yourself?

  53. says

    While I’m pleased to see that most of the posts on Marino’s site are in support of Ashley, an word of warning, Marino logs the IP addresses of people who comment on NIO, so it’s best not to do so without taking appropriate precautions (including a shower afterwards).

    Camille Marino is a classic example of a stalker with a cause, a twisted wreck on a human being who can only feel happy when inflecting misery on others. Notice how she always manages to stay just on the right side of the 1st ammendment, while encouraging others to do her dirty work for her.

    However the real answer to this extremism doesn’t lie in curbing free speech, rather with the students of University of Florida who must stand up to this intimidation and harassment of their fellow student. I fully believe that they will do so if given the opportunity, and the authorities at UF must permit students to do so. If students at Oxford University could face down SPEAK/ALF then students at UF can face down NIO.

    http://speakingofresearch.com/about/the-uk-experience/

    To Ashley I will say just this: Stand strong, there are many uf us ready to stand with you!

  54. Athena says

    #66. I only stated that he was an atheist because I believe that it will encourage more people who are atheists, and read this blog, to look into his writings.
    I am genuinely curious–what are the cracks in Singer’s arguements regarding specieism? There are scientists apart from Singer who make similar arguments–especially about apes. It’s a basic utilitarian arguement.
    There aren’t alternatives for animal testing for everything, but if you look at the standards that the EU sets for testing as opposed to testing in the US, it’s pretty stark. That’s especially true of things like the Draize test, where there are alternatives, but in vivo testing is required when negative results are found.

  55. Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies says

    Athena:

    For the record, I hate PETA

    Congratulations, I guess. I’ll make you a fucking cookie.

    What exactly do you propose we do, if not animal testing? Only permit testing for the “big” diseases? Only allow testing for fatal diseases? Allow no testing at all? Test on humans instead?

    What is it about these threads that brings out the animal rights bozos? They’re almost as bad as the MRAs.

  56. says

    “There aren’t alternatives for animal testing for everything, but if you look at the standards that the EU sets for testing as opposed to testing in the US, it’s pretty stark. That’s especially true of things like the Draize test, where there are alternatives, but in vivo testing is required when negative results are found.”

    Bullshit. The Draize test has been modified in the US and the UK since the 1940’s. BTW, the Draize test is in vivo testing.

    The main exploiters were cosmetic companies, not research scientists. Maybe you should have gone with LD-50.

  57. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    what are the cracks in Singer’s arguements regarding specieism?

    Humans aren’t totally the same as other animals. Besides, he offers no real and viable alternatives, just idiotic ranting. Specieism is an invented term, and his whole argument is presupposition. Just like godbots and their theology.

  58. Ava, Oporornis maledetta says

    Keep your chin up, Ashley. And don’t hesitate to call the police if you feel threatened.

  59. Rumtopf says

    What do these idiots think about veterinary medicine? (Apart from the ones who are anti-pet, apparently pets are “slaves” and they would all be better off dead.) I’ve had many animals over the years whose lives would have been cut short by illness if it weren’t for the vets. I’ve seen many more working in a vet practice myself. Many of those meds are near identicle to those intended for use in humans, produced by the same pharm companies. Bleh.

  60. Nerwal says

    NIO has a YouTube channel.

    Warning Do not click the link if you value your sanity.

    Camille Marino appears to be even crazier than you’d think.

  61. Midnight Rambler says

    Interesting that Camille also has up this post about anti-abortion protesters picketing a school because it’s attended by the children of the landlord of an abortion clinic. Evidently she’s searching for tactics and allies.

  62. Somebody says

    These people are rabid fanatics, terrorists plain and simple.

    That’s your human privilege talking.

  63. says

    what are the cracks in Singer’s arguements regarding specieism?

    It’s bullshit. Animals are judged based on their species because, huge fucking surprise, their cognative abilities are kinda dependent on it.

    Know who are really specist? Tigers. Fuckers think they can eat Antelope just because of their species!

    Anyway people here aren’t specisit…they’re personists. If a Jellyfish was able to demonstrate that it understood the concept of rights I doubt anyone here would give a second thought to granting such a non-human entity full ‘human’ rights.

  64. says

    Also Singer is a fool.

    It may come as a news flash to some of you twits but society was sort of made by humans FOR humans. A non-human animal that doesn’t have a comparable level of understanding of a human isn’t part of society.

    A more tenable and ethical position is of animal WELFARE. Animals don’t have rights by definition but they should be granted standards of living in recognition of their levels of awareness

  65. says

    “That’s your human privilege talking.”

    Have you or a loved one ever taken anti-biotics? Ever had a flu shot? Any family members survived cancer? Ever taken a pet to the vet for medicine?

  66. John Morales says

    [OT]

    Ing:

    Also Singer is a fool.

    You’re referring to Peter Singer?

    (If so, it says much about your acumen)

  67. marella says

    I wonder how they reconcile the problem of carnivorous animals.

    It’s not a problem because they don’t actually love animals, they just hate humans.

    @Athena

    The problem with Singer’s ‘speciesism’ idea is that it’s just as ‘speciesist’ as the current world. He decides what animals are edible on the basis of how like humans they are. If they have a nervous system sufficiently similar to a person’s then they are deemed able to suffer and therefor inedible. So just when you’ve been convinced that people should not be privileged over other animals he comes up with this explanation of what he considers it’s ethical to eat and the whole thing falls apart. Very disappointing.

  68. Ragutis says

    sparky-ca says:
    14 September 2011 at 3:16 pm

    @Suresh

    I work in biotech so I am in and out of labs with animals all the time.
    1) not all the animals are killed after the end of the research.
    2) many of the big pharma companies work with various organisations to adopt out or send to sanctuaries their lab animals

    Ooh. Does this mean I can adopt a glow in the dark kitteh?

    Seriously. I wants.

    ——————————

    Stay strong, Ashley Marie! You have more support than you may know. (Essentially everyone with more than a baker’s dozen of functioning brain cells. Hopefully you weren’t counting on Michelle Bachmann. ;p )

  69. John Morales says

    marella:

    If they have a nervous system sufficiently similar to a person’s then they are deemed able to suffer and therefor inedible.

    You are very confused.

    The actual claim is that (ceteris paribus) the greater the capacity for suffering, the less bio-ethically justifiable is the infliction of such.

    (That humans happen to be adjudged to have the greatest such capacity is a datum, not a basis)

  70. Lyra says

    These people frustrate me.

    Every single cat I’ve ever had kills for pleasure. Not for survival, pleasure. How do I know this? Because I feed those little butterballs and it’s more difficult for me to keep them from being OVERWEIGHT.

    Does this mean that I need to be afraid that these bozos will come kill my cats? No, because these lardheads have different standards for humans than they do for animals, for all that they harp that we should all be equal. A cat tortures a mouse to death for pleasure? Meh, no big deal. After all, it’s just the cat’s nature! A human painlessly kills a mouse to save lives? OMFG explosion of rage! Because apparently “saving lives” is less of a human trait than “tortuing small rodents” is a cat trait.

    Pffft at these people. PFFFT.

  71. says

    Ing:

    Anyway people here aren’t specisit…they’re personists. If a Jellyfish was able to demonstrate that it understood the concept of rights I doubt anyone here would give a second thought to granting such a non-human entity full ‘human’ rights.

    ^^^QFMFT!!^^^

    Also, for those of you who didn’t want to visit the NIO site, the picture they published of Ashley shows her grinning happily, with a pool cue in her hand, in a bar. Here was my comment over at the SciBlogs version of this thread (all I could get to during the workday):

    Anyone else think it’s insidious that the picture they publish shows her smiling and playing pool (in a bar, no less!)? It’s not exactly slut shaming — there’s nothing sexual about the picture — but it’s something related… call it pleasure shaming. Against the background of their false predicate regarding her “crimes,” depicting her engaged in “trivial” amusements is clearly intended to portray her as not only immoral, but utterly untroubled by her lack of any morality. Grrrr….

    The explicit message of the NIO post is that this young woman is a torturer of animals; the implicit message of that picture is that she’s a cheerful, carelessly unconcerned torturer of animals.

    Oh, how I hate these people!

  72. John Morales says

    Lyra:

    Every single cat I’ve ever had kills for pleasure.

    You are indulging in anthropomorphism.

    Instinct ain’t reason.

    (Do they eat, groom, shit, fuck, flee from threats for pleasure too?)

  73. says

    John:

    Every single cat I’ve ever had kills for pleasure.

    You are indulging in anthropomorphism.

    Mebbe so, but if you take out the anthropomorphic notion of pleasure…

    “Every single cat I’ve ever had kills for pleasurewithout restraint or necessity.”

    …Lyra’s basic point is, it seems to me, unchanged. It’s similar to (IIRC) Ing’s point upthread about those fucking “speciesist” tigers.

  74. Old Rockin' Dave says

    @Pelamun, #58:
    “Aceh? You do know there was a peace agreement six years ago, right?”
    I didn’t know but it doesn’t change my point – I am sure that Camille did and said nothing about it seven or eight years ago. Truthfully, I just put it in the list so I wouldn’t only be rounding up the ‘usual suspects’.

  75. John Morales says

    Bill,

    …Lyra’s basic point is, it seems to me, unchanged. It’s similar to (IIRC) Ing’s point upthread about those fucking “speciesist” tigers.

    Yeah, Lyra’s point remains as unmeritorious as ever.

    As for Ing, well. Ing is an ignoramus and does the same thing as Lyra does: to wit, confuses speciesism with instinct.

    (Speciesism is the assignation of moral values based on species, something that requires sapience. Tigers ain’t sapient.)

    To reiterate: Instinct ain’t reason.

  76. says

    These people are bullies and thugs. They give the entire animal rights movement a bad name. I may be pursuing a career in scientific research in a couple of years and I don’t want to have to deal with harassment like this.

    @Lyra: It’s not inconsistent to hold humans and cats/tigers to different standards.

    When a male lion takes over a pride, he often kills any cubs fathered by the previous male. Nobody suggests that the lion should be arrested for this. However, if a human male tried to do the same thing, killing his stepchildren, we would expect him to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and all of us would call his behaviour unacceptable.

    The difference is that humans, unlike other animals, are capable of acting as moral agents. We have highly developed mental lives and innate senses of empathy and fairness. Other social animals possess these instincts to a limited degree, though they lack our mental sophistication and our ability to extend moral intuitions by reasoning. We can consider the effects that our actions have on other beings and appreciate the consequences.

    Cats or tigers are not capable of this kind of self-reflection, so it’s meaningless to hold them ‘responsible’ for their behaviour. It’s perfectly consistent to say that humans shouldn’t kill other animals without good reason, while accepting that cats cannot be judged in the same way.

  77. says

    The difference is that humans, unlike other animals, are capable of acting as moral agents… Cats or tigers are not capable of this kind of self-reflection, so it’s meaningless to hold them ‘responsible’ for their behaviour.

    Well, screw whether they should be held “responsible”. Should they be stopped? Should we prevent them from engaging in this behavior?

    If yes, then the rest is semantics. If we stop them, we stop them. Whether they understand why we do it is quite irrelevant. What matters is that we’ve prevented unnecessary harm, right?
    For that matter, animals do not need the ability for complicated moral reasoning in order to be taught proper behavior. I very much doubt that the average dog understands exactly why it shouldn’t piss on the carpet beyond “my owner doesn’t like it”. Doesn’t mean we can’t teach it to wait until it’s outside.

    If no, then does that mean that a human shouldn’t be stopped either, as long as they were unaware of what they were doing?
    Let’s say that a person is psychopathic and has no understanding of the suffering of others. Should we just allow them to go around harming or even killing other people? I’m guessing not.

  78. Lyra says

    @John Morales
    What do you mean “reason” as opposed to “pleasure?” The desire for pleasure IS a reason for doing something. The only way your statement would make any sense is if you mean something like “logic” for “reason,” and certainly I don’t think cats have that. But that’s not what I’m claiming. I also don’t understand what you are trying to do by setting up “instinct” in opposition to “pleasure.” Acting in accordance to instinct can be pleasurable.

    And yes, I do think cats eat, groom, and fuck for pleasure. Fleeing and shitting may be to avoid pain.

    @Winter Wind
    Of course it’s reasonable to hold humans and animals to different standards. That’s my point.

  79. says

    As for Ing, well. Ing is an ignoramus and does the same thing as Lyra does: to wit, confuses speciesism with instinct.

    I think you missed the point of my argument. Idiot.

    You’re referring to Peter Singer?

    (If so, it says much about your acumen)

    In this regard he is. There’s been no real instance where people have been tested persay on whether they are speciesist or personists; at least in these contexts. There are people who eat pigs who would not eat dogs otu of a preference which is speciesist but the distinction between not granting a dog rights and a human rights is not.

  80. says

    (Speciesism is the assignation of moral values based on species, something that requires sapience. Tigers ain’t sapient.)

    You missed my point so utterly and completely and call me an idiot? JM you are as always an ass.

  81. Concerned in Florida says

    Sources in Gainesville say that Ashley’s family has been asked to make a statement warning other parents about sending their kids to Florida to pursue an education or career in biomedical science.

    Ashley’s information may be removed from that abominable website if this “denunciation” is issued.

    NIO is threatening the future of science in central Florida which has substantial economic ramifications as well.

  82. Lincoln says

    Someone should challenge that Marino woman to a debate. Just bring out in the open how batshit insane she actually is.

  83. ginckgo says

    How pathetic that they hide behind their “Disclaimer” at the bottom of each post:

    “Disclaimer: The information on this site is for educational and entertainment purposes only. There is no intent, express or implied, to promote illegal activities. We assume no liability for the potential actions of any third party. All data compiled here has been gathered from, and is available through, independent public sources.”

    In case someone actually followed through on the threats to one of their targets like Ashley, would this actually hold up in court to absolve them of culpability? That site should be shut down for hate speech and incitement to violence! This is NOT what freedom of speech is all about.

  84. mister_roboto says

    I understand WHY she gave in, with instructions on how to make molotov cocktails on the bottom of the page and the cowards disclaimer of “The information on this site is for educational and entertainment purposes only…” but DAMN, Florida needs a http://www.pro-test.org.uk/ equivalent, students shouldn’t be subject to that harassment for their given field of study.

    Also as a side note- if you happen to be at your work/lab/university computer, you shouldn’t visit any animal activist web sites- as they tend to track IP addresses etc, and it may put your computer network at risk.

  85. Russell says

    Strange are the ways of convergent evolution- Dominionist supporters of climate crackpottery wail against scientifically sane republicans and workaday atmospheric scientists in equally violent tones

  86. says

    Concerned in Florida @102

    It seems to unfortunately be the case, Ashley wasn’t a student only a part time cleaner at the lab who had no contact no contact with research animals, hardly a “future vivisectionist”.

    It is very much to Ashley’s credit that while she left her job she did not make any bullshit statement that she had changed her mind on animal research, indeed a report in a local newspaper in which Ashley was interviewed gives the following:

    “In the wake of the posting of her name and information, she’s stopped working there. But she doesn’t want the decision to be viewed as a victory for the group, which she said sees as bullying people who disagree with them.

    “They’re not a terrorist group. They’re a group of big bullies,” the woman said.

    http://chalkboard.blogs.gainesville.com/2011/09/animal-rights-group-posts-info-on-local-woman/

    Camille Marino and her anti-democratic friends are scum, pure and simple, and the sooner they are behind bars the better for everybody.

  87. Rees says

    Whilst some may question the actions of animal rights the motive behind them is absolutely spot on. As a doctor I can say with absolute authority that animal experiments have never and will never ‘help save human lives’ and anyone who believes that ought to be ashamed of themselves for believing the lies that have been pushed on to society for so many years.

    Oh yes next time you are ill remember to take that quick jaunt down to your local veterinarian and take your seat behind the dogs, rabbits and cats to await your diagnosis by Doctor Doolittle….Ignorance allows atrocities to continue.

  88. John Morales says

    Rees:

    As a doctor I can say with absolute authority that animal experiments have never and will never ‘help save human lives’ and anyone who believes that ought to be ashamed of themselves for believing the lies that have been pushed on to society for so many years.

    As a non-idiot I can say with absolute certainty that you’re bullshitting.

    (You ever heard of heart transplants? What about Herceptin?)

    PS argumentum ad verecundiam is futile, here.

    (It just makes you look stupid)

  89. mister_roboto says

    Indeed- you beat me to his bullshit “I’m a Doctor.” Also the “atrocities” comment pretty much tipped his hat.

  90. ashley chavez-rubertt says

    Okay, so, this is one of the first times I’m publicly commenting on this whole situation. Let me clear this up a bit: I did not quit because I was intimidated, Camille got that one wrong too. (Shocking, right?)

    I strongly disagreed with how the company (not UF) I was working for handled the situation, and it created a horrid work environment so I couldn’t say there.

    I even told Camille herself this, and she conveniently didn’t post those e-mails.

    So, I still support everything I supported before this whole thing even began. She doesn’t scare me, she annoys me.

    -Ashley Marie

  91. says

    Wonderful beat ! I would like to apprentice even as you amend your website, how can i subscribe for a blog site? The account aided me a appropriate deal. I were a little bit familiar of this your broadcast provided bright clear idea