The suffer argument

[Eternal salvation]

First of all it's really great that you settled a forum. I am really expecting to see how people from the whole world will react to the idea and to this website.

I have just finished reading the article The suffer argument and I feel such a huge identification with it as if it is my own words from my own throat arguing with anti-vivisection activists.

The "vivisection is absurd" people, are speciesist animal rights activists who should be denounced from the animal liberation movement. And I say that for years. As written in the article - the Thalidomide and Vioxx examples are speciesist, “No one became an anti vivisection activist to prevent the next thalidomide disaster, it is Draize test, LD-50 and Learned Helplessness Experiments that were on their mind.”
For every Thalidomide child there are millions of animals systematically tortured in laboratories everyday regardless of the success of the experiment. They are victims all the time not only when something goes wrong. The anti-vivisection organizations’ human oriented messages need to be stopped.
I know this is not on the OOS agenda and not exactly related to this forum but I still want to use this platform and call the animal liberation groups out there to excommunicate speciesist organization from animal liberation activities.

[E.A.S]

Well it is a little off topic but it is a very important discussion.
Anyway to make a little return to the relevancy of the anti-vivisection organization speciesism and this forum, even more than the “for the environment, for the hungry, for your health” vegetarianism argument, the “vivisection is absurd” doctrine indicates the movement’s hopelessness and disbelief in the chances for a real change in the way humans seize animals. I can’t think of anything lamer than animal rights activists arguing that animal experiments should be stopped because it is bad science. But as speciesist as this doctrine is I think it screams hopelessness and helplessness more than speciesism.
I have no doubt that these activists care about animals and stopping their suffer is what motivates them and not genuine science. The reason for the dominant anthropocentric approach is disbelief that animals’ suffer solely can convince the scientific community, the decision makers and the general public that vivisection should be stopped. Disbelief in years of experience.

[Euthanasia brigade]

First if you identified with it I think you’d enjoy Even The Most Selfish Argument
And second I think it’s a valid argument but the way it took center stage as it did should scare anyone that aspires to abolish speciesism.
And it has gotten worse! Until a while ago the terminology was vivisection is useless, misleading, shame, fraud and so forth, now it’s vivisection dangers you and your family, it’s gotten to shirt prints as "VIVISECTION KILLS HUMANS TOO, WE ARE ALL VICTIMS!
Using rhetoric that places humans in the same boat as nonhumans just to score a bit more public support is disgusting. Comparing and in some cases even putting in first priority the relatively few cases of death resulted from prescribed drugs, to the systematic and intentional poisoning, injuring, burning, irradiating, electrification, driving into insanity and eventually murdering tens of billions of animals each year, is simply an outrage.
I know it’s basically still the same bad science case but in this latest form of speciesism framing it is just so blunt it makes me sick. This anthropocentric tactic is gradually weakening our moral basis, despairing and setting us off course. And if activists leading the revolution are not focused on animal liberation what are the chances to persuade everybody.

[Declaration of the end]

I agree with Eternal salvation there is a strange differentiation between anti-vivisection and animal rights organization but it is animal liberation organizations fault just as much. In many cases animal liberation/rights activists are not eager to deal with vivisection because it often blocks people from veganism and because they simply prefer to deal with what they see (and I am speaking about myself here too) as bigger and more urgent issues.

One last thing, did you watch rodents?
made me think about the insane absurdity that many anti-vivisection organizations fall into the speciesist taxonomic pyramid used by vivisectors, which is pure speciesism. Instead of countering it they are showing almost only dogs, cats and monkeys in their publications. It presents the unproportionate relation between “the cute” and “the disposable”. Cruel and speciesist distinction made by whom who call themselves animal rights activists.

[E.A.S]

It is another aspect of the despair in the face of speciesism. If the knowledgeability that humans will not resist vivisection “just” because animals suffer, causes them to enter to head to head arguments with scientists as if it is scientific discussion on the line and not a moral one and to practically deal with anything but ethics like public health, zoology, customer protection, scientific validity, budgeting the public funds and etc, this recognition that humans won’t care about animals like mice and rats causes them to ignore 95% of the victims.

[Eternal salvation]

Because they rely on humans’ affection to those they consider as “pets”, forgetting that the dog will always lose to mommy. It is playing to the vivisectors hands.
The anti-vivisectionists play the empathy card and the vivisectors respond with a stronger card, the triumph one.

[E.A.S]

Right. The name “The animal rights movement” should be changed into “The humans give animals rights”. Everything is so human oriented. Even when they do mention animals it is humans’ best friend. 

As animal rights activists we used to hate the name “peta” - people for the ethical treatment of animals, but unfortunately it reflects the movement orientation. The movement should be animal oriented and as such humans’ opinions don’t matter. Activists should focus on stopping animal experiments and not convincing humans that animal experiments should be stopped. The currently used methods don’t stop animal experimentation and they severely harm the general idea of animal rights.
By saying stopping animal experiments with animal oriented methods I mean physically stop the experiments. Bloc labs entrances, breaking into labs and then break the labs, freeing the animals.

Of course there is a huge effectiveness problem. Pretty soon the few activists who agree to do this sort of activities will be arrested and we will get back to the current point minus few of the best activists the animals have. Even if all the animal rights activists in the world join hands and break into all the labs in the world, open all the cages and break all the labs, as great as it could be even that unrealistic action won’t arrest the experiments but the activists. And vivisection is only one out of dozens of animal exploitation forms.
Sporadic activities are useless in the long run. That is one of the reasons that brought us to establish the O.O.S.

[TCU]

There is a cartoon illustrating the speciesism inherent within the contemporary conventional movement - https://anonfiles.com/file/29bf71f7b300d4b39e0e2456c8581971

---

As for watching an argument take place with regards to "good" and bad" vivisection then I would imagine that any scientist worth his salt would not baulk at innovating ethical alternatives to the practices of Cartesian vivisection. Isn't that what a "scientist" is supposed to do...create new ideas and methods...and enjoy doing that?

If someone calls themselves a "scientist" and yet can't develop solutions without resorting to the mass operation of torture chambers then they should seek alternative "enjoyable" employment beating seals, joining the rodeo or training circus elephants like any normal person would be forced to do if they were unable to fulfil the role of their profession.

Considering vivisection doesn't seem to be going anywhere fast then I'm left to conclude that vivisection is yet another animal torture industry like any other that employs perfectly normal human beings who enjoy getting paid to be an instrument of suffer (and receive kudos as "scientists") while the employers profit from yet another fraudulent use of tax dollars.

Needless to say...that if the majority of human population can stand by and let this all happen, and are stupid enough to believe the industry propaganda...Then bring on the OOS.

[E.A.S]

Needless to say...that if the majority of human population can stand by and let this all happen, and are stupid enough to believe the industry propaganda...Then bring on the OOS.

It sounds like a punishment from your text  
The Only One Solution is not a punishment for humans.
It is not a revenge journey or a justice campaign. We are about ending all the suffering and our solution is the only way to do it for all the reasons we have specified all along the website and especially in the Manifest and FAQ .
It is important for us to emphasize over and over that it is not out of revenge or hatred but only because it is the only idea, that first of all, even aims at stopping all the suffering, and that is able to stop it, and for good.

What’s even worse in that sentence is the suggested dependency between humans’ intelligence, openness for new ideas and the ability for self-criticism, and between the O.O.S ideology.
To condition the idea on how smart or stupid humans are is wrong. These traits are morally irrelevant. Even if humans were all geniuses or all retarded or even if all the animal experiments would to stop tomorrow, it shouldn’t matter. We established the O.O.S movement because we want to stop the suffering. All of it.
Even the most optimistic activists out there can’t seriously argue that they see in a visible time frame the end of all animal experiments. But even if there are some who do, it is only one industry and not particularly big compared with factory farms which are a much bigger problem. The whole world is a problem. There is suffering and violence and struggles everywhere on this planet.
Even if humans were much better creatures than the selfish bastards that they are, you shouldn’t hesitate since it is not about humans. Obviously we would like to see the majority of humans don’t stand by and let this all happen, but we definitely don’t bound our ideology and plans of actions upon what humans are doing or will do. We seek for a sufferingless world and humans’ actions, even if we could control or affect them, can’t even theoretically carry out one.
Even without getting into the chances that humans will ever change for the better, there is not even a theoretical way that they can change the world from the giant energy battlefield that it is, to a non-violent one . They can’t even theoretically avoid their own suffering causing not to mention the rest .
Suffering, and suffering only, is what it’s all about. Not revenge or punishment, but the only rational and certain solution for all the suffering in the world.