Sierra: "As much as we would like to think that we are all animal rights activists, the truth stays that while animal testing appears to be wrong to many people, it is only the fact that we have not found a mass way of communicating with other species, and therefore we assume what they want."I'm not sure EXACTLY what you meant by this, but it seems to me safe to ASSUME that the high pitch vocalizations of lab victims is an expression of distress, and that they WANT us to stop. You are not the first to argue that it is impossible to know what animals want, that it is wrong to project our feelings on them, and that they probably experience different feelings while being tested on than you or I might. These same people have justified continued testing on these grounds alone. This seems like fairly twisted logic to me. The animals ain't linin' up outtside universities begging to be tested on, so it makes sense to me that we should perhaps conclude they don't WANT to be tested on.
As an "animal rights" person, I am continually confronted with arguments such as, "Hey, aren't those leather shoes?" or, "You live with two cats, right?" These are used as weapons against me to discount my arguments. Since I don't live up to my beliefs, no one else should have to, right? Once people "shot holes" in my argument, they are able to return to their self-indulgent lives and not feel the pressures of conscience. My response to this is: I am not perfect, and yes I do lots of things I think are wrong, but I am trying to change these, one at a time. My finger-pointing is as much at myself as at anyone else. My lack of perfection is not justification for someone else's idleness in a world screaming out for help.
