UCLA Pro-Test: Diversions, Ad Hominems, & McCarthyism

Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

Christine Godfrey is another profile I use on facebook. Everyone in this threadwas very clear about the fact they were speaking to Camille Marino.Christine Godfrey If you want to quiet the activists, why does your communityrefuse to engage in civil productive debate?18 hours ago • Comment • Like / Unlike • View feedback (14)Hide feedback (14) •ReportJ David JentschTo answer the question, a "civil" debate does not include incipient thugs,criminals, apologists or their lackeys. That pretty much invalidates most everyonethat has been offered as an "opponent". Put simply, I won't insult the issue bygiving time to those that promote violence, personal attack, hate or harassment toachieve the ends of their ... Read moremovement, nor to those that aid theirmission directly.We are working to develop a program of civil, reasoned discourse with mainstreamindividuals opposed to animal research... the program will be released soon andwill be advertised here... At that point, the voices of reason will become louderthan those of the hysterical few who are currently dominating this debate.9 hours ago • ReportChristine GodfreyDavid,Thank you for responding to an "extremist". I appreciate it. By the way, I'm onlyusing this profile because I'm banned as Camille Marino.You need to stop diverting attention from the issues. There were no "thugs,criminals, apologists or their lackeys" in this equation. You refused to debate arespected trauma surgeon, Dr. Jerry Vlasak, with whom you disagree on animalrights. Dr. Ray Greek, to the best of my knowledge is a retired physician not evenactive in AR. ... Read moreYou refuse to engage in productive dialogue that challenges the scientific meritof your research. It doesn't get more mainstream and neutral than CNN -- and yourefused. Your resistance frustrates reasoned discourse; you do not advance it.Rather than enthusiastically opening up a public dialogue to promote understandingand encourage ideas, you frustrate communication by focusing on personalities.You can use emotionally-charged phrases like "violent", "hate", "personal attacks"to divert attention only. This is not the behavior of a scientist promotingreason.Why will you not debate science with scientists?8 hours ago • DeleteJ David JentschThe fact that Jerry Vlasak is a physician is not relevant. What is relevant isthat he has personally boasted about, condoned and apologized for attacks againstme and my colleagues. He has used words like "assassination" in reference to us. Iwould not be surprised if he was, himself, directly linked to some of the criminalactivities directed ... Read moreagainst us. Apparently, the Hippocratic Oath hetook when he received his degree has been forgotten.Dr. Greek has openly condemned violent actions to achieve the ends of the animal

rights movement. I appreciate that. But he also colludes with them - openlyassociating with Jerry Vlasak and sharing an address with another individual whocalls for harm against scientists (Rick Bogle).You can not ask for an open and honest debate when you repeatedly refer toviolence as a negotiating tool. Either words alone are the tools for thisdialogue, or it can not happen.6 hours ago • ReportChristine GodfreyNo. The fact that Jerry Vlasak is a physician is the ONLY thing that is relevant.Because he made some innocuous statements that hurt your feelings, you abandonreasoned discourse. Your comment about the possibility of him being connected toyour attacks are not only slanderous, but, decidedly ironic. Any violence that'sbeen visited on you is a direct result of the violence you routinely visit on yourvictims. We both know that you fear exposure. It's a natural human reaction toprotect the innocent when we see abuse. You and only you have whatever redress youreceived.The rest of your comments about Vlasak are nonsense. He is a surgeon -- heactively helps people for a living. You are a vivisector -- you actively causeharm to animals.But I am not a scientist. If there is any validity to your research, you shouldput your personal prejudices aside and promote understanding through dialogue....Read moreAs far as Dr. Greek, the only reason you cite to not engage him is that you objectto his associations. Guilt by association is the same McCarthyism that fosteredoppression and effectively stifled communication. By taking civil open discussionoff the table, you create an atmosphere that necessitates other tacticsl.The issue of violence is relative. And, should you ever choose to debate theethics of subjecting the innocent to violent experiments, I have someone in mindwho I'm certain would debate that.If you continue to pick and choose who you will engage based on your personalprejudices, you will remain the greatest impediment to progress.5 hours ago • DeleteRobert McDonaldA physician named Jerry Vlasak, introduced as an animal advocate, proceeded totell a Congressional committee that deadly force “would be a morally justifiablesolution” against scientists who test on animals.April 2008– Jerry Vlasak Tells Utah Reporter that Killing Researchers is ‘MorallyAcceptable’:In an April 27th interview with a reporter at the Confronting Animal Crueltyconference in Salt Lake City, Dr. Jerry Vlasak repeated previous statements thatkilling researchers is a “morally acceptable” action.... Read more"I don't think you'd have to kill too many [researchers]. I think for five lives,10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-humanlives."

Dr. Jerry Vlasak, director; board member, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (EIN:93-0792021); Animal Rights 2003 convention, Los Angeles, CA, 2004.4 hours ago • ReportRobert McDonald"I think we do need to embrace direct action and violent tactics as part of ourmovement ... I don't think we ought to be criticizing someone, whether we'recriticizing [them] because they're writing letters, or whether we criticize thembecause they're burning down fur stores or vivisection labs. I think we need toinclude everybody in that circle."Dr. Jerry Vlasak; Animal Rights 2002 convention,Washington, DC, June 30, 2002.Vlasak, Jerry 2008 "I think the suffering and abuse of animals in laboratories isa lot more severe than some kids having to climb down a ladder because there was alittle smoke in their house.... Read more(Interviewed by CNN, aired Aug. 4, 2008, following two firebombings on Aug. 2directed at University of California Santa Cruz researchers, one of which forced aprofessor and his family to evacuate their home via a 2nd-floor fire escape.)Jerry Vlaska 2006 "If that means going onto their farms, releasing their animalsand burning the place to the ground, that's morally justifiable."4 hours ago • ReportJ David JentschRobert's posts say it all; the facts here are incontrovertible.Let this diatribe be evidence of the unreasoned endorsement of blood lust andhatred that flows from Vlasak, Marino and their ilk. The irony of her claims thatscientists are violent and prejudiced should be lost on no one.3 hours ago • ReportChristine GodfreyI see you have a flair for drama, David.Is that statement news to anyone? The fact that you disagree with someone'sphilosophy is irrelevant and inconsequential.You are purportedly a man of science and, therefore, your concern should be truthand progress. But, no... it's easier to divert attention and continueunchallenged.... Read moreIf an animal can be protected -- human or nonhuman -- through violence, it is notonly justifiable, it is a moral obligation. If the subject were a human baby, youwould probably agree.While we use words that have harmed no one, you are the man that imprisons andmutilates animals, inspires hatred, and demands a response. You have earned anyviolence that's been visited on you all by yourself.If you find this concept hateful, how do you define imprisonment, mutilation,torture & murder? I define it as obscene and violent.2 hours ago • DeleteArthur H. Nicholsdid someone earlier make a link between CNN and Neutrality?

of 00

Leave a Comment