A Counter-Argument to the Counter-Argument Against Pamela Anderson’s Post Against Animal Testing wrote:
I recently reposted Pamela Anderson’s wonderful statement against animal testing, both here on Tumblr as well as on Facebook. (Here’s a link to my repost:
http://nrgins.tumblr.com/post/954967166 ... al-testing )
One of my Facebook friends responded there with a link to a counter-argument to Pamela’s post. Here is the link I was given:
http://thedailybanter.com/2014/08/als-a ... l-testing/
I replied to my Facebook friend with a counter-argument to that counter-argument. So I thought I’d repost it here as well. It is below.
I read that counter-argument. There’s a lot of double-talk in it. Let’s look at it.
The ALS Association says:
"Significant advances have been made in ALS and other neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s Disease and Parkinson’s Disease using model systems such as rodents, flies and worms to better understand disease mechanisms and to develop therapies."
Great! Who cares about rodents, flies and worms, right? Vermin! Note, though, that they DON’T say that they don’t test on higher life forms, such as monkeys. They just say “such as rodents, flies and worms.” Good job skirting the issue there, ALSA!
Next, they say:
"The ALS Association supports laboratories and scientists that strictly adhere to the guidelines provided by the National Institutes of Health."
Great! Sounds like there’s no problem then, right? Only problem is that the “guidelines provided by the National Institutes of Health” allow for the kind of torturous experimentation that Pam is talking about. So good use of double-speak there, ALSA!
And then there’s this doozy:
"If a donor is not comfortable with a specific type of research, he or she can stipulate that their dollars not be invested in that particular area."
Great! But they would still be supporting the organization that does those things, and it would have no impact at all on whether those things are done. Much of their funding doesn’t go to animal research anyway. So saying that funds shouldn’t go to animal research would have no effect on the situation, and the same amount of funding overall would still go to animal research.
So, basically, just an empty statement on the part of ALSA.
Next:
"We are currently not funding primate studies and per our statement, support research that adheres to ethical guidelines."
Again, more double-speak. Pam didn’t say they were currently funding primate studies; only that they had “recently” done so. Note that they didn’t deny that claim, nor did they even address it.
No doubt they backed off of their primate studies once they received backlash (prior to Pam’s post, I assume), and so they are “currently not funding primate studies.”
Again, a completely empty statement by ALSA.
First, it doesn’t address the claim that they had recently performed those atrocious acts. The claims Pamela made would have been very simple to deny, IF they were false claims. And ALSA certainly would have denied them if they were false! But, apparently, they couldn’t do so.
But, also, if you read it carefully, you’ll see that they don’t say that they won’t do so again in the future, either! They simply say, “We are currently not funding primate studies.” Not “we have never funded primate studies,” nor “we will not fund primate studies in the future.” Just “we are currently not funding primate studies.”
Great double-speak, ALSA!
And then there’s that “we support research that adheres to ethical guidelines,” which, again, is meaningless, since current “ethical guidelines” allow for cruel and torturous treatment of lab animals.
Last, I’ll just say that the way the author of that article trivializes and distorts what Pam said shows that he’s just as biased against what she’s saying as he accuses her of being against ALSA.
Plus, he missed the point of her post completely. He repeatedly makes it an issue of whether one should donate to ALSA or “non-profits Pamela Anderson approves of,” which, again, trivializes what she’s saying and misses the point completely.
The point of Pam’s post is that animal testing is both cruel and unnecessary, and that she can’t support an organization that supports it. It’s a post about the need to eliminate animal testing completely, not whether you should donate to this organization or another organization. But the author of the article was so impassioned against what Pam was saying, that, apparently, he couldn’t see that.
