This is how you do “militant”

Hey, everyone that thinks we atheists are being militant — I want to point you to something right now that pretty well exposes your claims for the falsehoods they are. This is how you do “militant”. By threatening with harassment and implied violence those people who dare to sign a petition, who dare make their voices heard.

In response to the pro-testing petition organized at Americans for Medical Progress, a number of self-proclaimed radicalized elements in the animal rights movement have taken it upon themselves to seek personal information on signatories of this petition in order to “contact” and “persuade” them that pictures of cute animals are more important than, say, curing animal diseases (humans are animals too, though both human and other animal diseases are being cured by this research). The people involved are those who have declared elsewhere that destruction of property and human life is acceptable in the fight against scientific research performed with animals, using strawmen built from our less humane past, often referencing events of 20 years ago or more.

I have signed this petition, and thumbed my nose at you fringe anti-science radicals in the process. Go ahead, call me a killer or a vivisectionist or whatever your term is. Despite your protestations, there is no blood on my hands. How much blood is on yours? How much will be, when the next disease hits — either in the human population or in any animal population — and we can’t use humane scientific testing to cure it? Will my blood be on your hands too? How much sympathy will that earn for your cause?

Hat tip to DuWayne Brayton, who would probably use a much ruder gesture than thumbing his nose.

This is how you do “militant”

41 thoughts on “This is how you do “militant”

  1. 1

    Hilarity will ensue when the anti-science forces realize that my last name is everywhere. Do keep in mind that any threats will be forwarded to the police. Thanks for stopping by!

  2. 3

    Agreed. I don’t particularly like the Let’s Blow People Up flavour of dumb though. I much prefer Turtle Tracks flavor. The little caramel cups are delicious!

  3. 6

    It occurs to me I haven’t yet posted my actual stand on animal testing. Lots of people are going to get the impression that I “gleefully demand the victimization of nonhumans”, thanks to the terrorists over at Negotiation Is Over. Of course this is patently ridiculous and nowhere near my real feelings, but that doesn’t matter much to the types that would look for any excuse to blow people up.

    Scientific testing was carried out, once upon a time, for idle curiosity, with animals actually vivisected (yes, by the real definition of the word, cut apart while living). This was horrific, and such luminaries as Charles Darwin advocated for more humane testing:

    “You ask about my opinion on vivisection. I quite agree that it is justifiable for real investigations on physiology; but not for mere damnable and detestable curiosity. It is a subject which makes me sick with horror, so I will not say another word about it, else I shall not sleep to-night.”

    I agree completely with his sentiment. The testing that goes on today is heavily regulated, though some mice, cats, rabbits and non-human primates still end up euthanized after the testing, and this is sad. The animals that die in the discovery of ways to treat not only humans but other animals as well, are martyrs to the cause. However, the scientists of today do as little damage as possible and only experiment where the experiment is medically justified. Virtually all of the advances in medicine of the 20th century were obtained by animal testing. If the militant anti-science activists would prefer to sign up for the testing themselves, I’m sure someone out there would be willing to accomodate them.

    Those that use the term “vivisector” hope to conjure up the image of someone that gleefully tortures animals for no reason. They make reference to practices that do not happen today, and even in the event that they did, they would have been justified and would have had to have approval from so many oversight bodies (most of which are stacked with people against animal testing to begin with!), that it would have to be a meritorious experiment to clear the hurdles.

    Now, I don’t doubt that some scientists are also sadists and derive joy from performing experiments, or cut just a little more often or more deeply than they need to, or without anesthetic. By the same token, however, I also don’t doubt that there are violent individuals in your number who won’t hesitate to hurt me or my family or my friends out of some sort of “retribution” for my daring to stand up against extremists and in defense of science.

    Frankly, it’s about time the voices of reason were heard over the din you fringe radicals are making.

  4. 9

    there is no humane way to mutilate and torture

    Agreed. That’s why mutilation and torture (the latter being specifically inflicting pain on purpose, e.g. in absence of anesthetic when pain-free methods are available) aren’t legal. Not in your jurisdiction or in mine. Any such torture outside the oversight bodies that have to explicitly allow each experiment are prosecuted heavily when caught. Do feel free to show where this is not the case.

    Again, if you genuinely believe that vivisectors are not violent sociopaths, by all means volunteer to be the subject in this wonderful frontier of scientific exploration. Volunteer your parents, your children, your companion animals — certainly if this “research” is essential and the environment is pleasant, then you should step up and make a contribution to mankind.

    OR, work to make sure that all testing is safe, as pain free and humane as possible, and where possible, testing is carried out only on infected animals already requiring intervention. In the alternative, volunteer YOURSELVES for this testing, as you’re the ones demanding this testing be carried out on humans instead. I’m not species-ist — I’d research on you as soon as I would on any lab animals. I’d even follow the pain protocols and requirements for anesthesia. Not that I’m one of these scientists — nor are you. You evidently know less about what’s going on in those labs than I do, having been in your echo chamber as long as you evidently have.

    Your first link describes the need for protocols for recognizing distress as well as pain, as previously we’ve only been concerned with pain. It elevates distress to the same level as pain, and works to mitigate both. It also suggests that the 90% of testing animals that do not fall under these guidelines presently, should be extended the same courtesy. What part of this is evil? What part is worth railing against?

    Your second link explains that postoperative pain should be considered and mitigated as well — and that the methods of pain themselves should be researched so we better know how to combat them in the operations we do have to perform. The very next page (click the next arrow at the bottom) says:

    However, although nonhuman animals cannot express in words the psychological and emotional consequences of a noxious stimulus or event, none of us in this audience would hesitate to apply the term “pain” to that circumstance. This fundamental distinction between pain and nociception emphasizes the importance of interpretation of animal behavior by an experienced individual to assess the presence and intensity of pain and distress.

    Having said this, it is nevertheless imperative to acknowledge that unless it is established to the contrary, we should assume that those procedures that produce pain in us might also produce pain in animals. This is an entirely appropriate guideline, bearing in mind the caveats that I discussed and the comments Dr. Bayne made just before me.

    Which part of this is sociopathic? Which part is inhumane? Talking about pain as a scientific concept is not particularly unfounded, especially in the pursuit of the reduction of such pain.

    And as is an anti-testing site, I’d consider its claims to be spurious and “within the echo chamber” unless you can find some outside corroboration. I am no legal expert, but my inexpert readings of the laws in place presently are good, and while they may need improvement, they are not by any stretch of the imagination monstrous or inhumane, nor would they allow such gross violations as described by that link.

    I want as little pain in testing as humanly possible, because every breakthrough we make not only in curing diseases but in mitigating pain has a direct and tangible benefit not only to us humans, but to animals that do not have benefit of the scientific method.

    I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again: you can’t pick and choose what science works and what science you’re willing to throw out the window because it disagrees with your ideology.

  5. 11

    My patience wears thin when people consistently mischaracterize me as some kind of inhuman monster, though. Anyway, I’ve been relying on funny Youtube videos for a few weeks, I figure I’m all recharged from my mini-vacation.

  6. 12

    Thanks for opening dialog by casting me as a gleeful sociopath deserving of death, discussing things with me reasonably for ten minutes, then when presented with rational interpretations of the evidence, turning back into a hyperbolic radical that equates science with ONOES BIG BUSINESS MONEY and medically indicated testing with OMG TORTURE AND LIVE VIVISECTION. You’ve gone from crazytown to almost willing to have a dialogue right back into screaming crazytown all in the space of three posts.

    You and I disagree as to the merits of animal testing. We probably agree on other topics, including some forms of human rights activism, though I suspect you’ve thrown in your lot with animals to the exclusion of human animals. On the other hand, I’m willing to experiment on humans when they require intervention anyway, and I’m willing to donate my body to science when I’m done with it myself. And if testing prevents a hundred animals’ pain at the cost of the pain of one animal, well, as Spock said, “the good of the many outweighs the good of the few or one.” If anything, that makes you the species-ist, more willing to experiment ONLY on humans for the benefit of all animals. Which is fine — if you can achieve laws to that end with popular support. If you think bombing things or posting personal information about people in hopes that others do the bombing is going to get you that support, you’re sadly mistaken. Instead, it’ll make us martyrs and your terrorist organizations will be stamped out by a society that values human life as highly as it has to, in order to have any semblance of right and wrong.

    And before you say THAT’S hyperbolic, that’s the only reason you’d ever post as much information as you already have. Especially where you yourself have done much to protect your own identity.

  7. 13

    Jason, there is no humane way to mutilate and torture. Welfare laws — the ones that actually cover certain lab victims — specify how to starve and dehydrate animals, how to regulate slight, moderate and severe distress, how to confine sentient beings.

    Again, if you genuinely believe that vivisectors are not violent sociopaths, by all means volunteer to be the subject in this wonderful frontier of scientific exploration. Volunteer your parents, your children, your companion animals — certainly if this “research” is essential and the environment is pleasant, then you should step up and make a contribution to mankind.

    I was just reading some of the NIH grant info over the weekend and the articles published by the UCLA psychopaths — in their own words, they describe the torment they inflict. I’ll try to publish that later today.

    The USDA on causing pain & distress in lab animals (admitting that 90% of the victims are not a concern of impotent welfare laws anyway):

    The sociopathic perspective suggests an utter disconnect and disinterest in a lab animal’s misery:

    “Over 90% of the animals used in experimentation are purposely excluded from protection under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA — the only federal law that governs animal experimentation). Rats, mice, birds, and many other species have been expressly eliminated from all safeguards. Violations of the Animal Welfare Act by labs have increased by over 90% in the last five years.”

    “APHIS does not have the authority, under current legislation, to effectively enforce the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act. For Instance, the agency cannot terminate or refuse to renew licenses or registrations in cases where serious or repeat violations occur (such as the use of animals in unnecessary experiments, or failure to treat diseases or wounds). In addition, APHIS cannot assess monetary penalties for violations unless the violator agrees to pay them, and penalties are often so low that violators merely regard them as part of the cost of doing business.”

  8. 14

    I could not care less if this psuedo-science you defend cured all the ills in the human species. Your arrogance is overwhelming and your illogical diatribe is confounding!

    Do you really believe that you are not a speciesist? You are the epitome of a cultural manifestation of human supremacy — YOU ADVOCATE TORTURING OTHER SPECIES FOR THE BENEFIT OF HUMANS!

    I do not want to “regulate” the use of animals. I want the vivisectors stopped. Period.

    The concept of Welfare is a cruel joke! You use the phrase “as pain free and humane as possible”. Industrial abusers use the term “necessary harm”. These are arbitrary feel-good phrases that do nothing that justify cutting up warm bodies — IT’S UNNECESSARY and WRONG!

    Those who carry out their diabolical experiments, bereft of any empathy, ENJOY inflicting pain. There is no justification and you are simply delusional and ignorant if you think a normal human being becomes a professional sadist by chance. Without capitalist incentives and the laws that shield these pathetic people, they would all be holed up in backyard bunkers torturing women, children, and animals.

    Tell me something, Jason. If taxpayer-funded grant money was removed from the equation, how many psychotic vivisectors would promote this insanity? Animal abuse is big money.

    The atrocities these psychopaths commit is best described in their own words. I’ll be getting back to you shortly.

  9. 15

    Camille: Well at least your consistent with your insanity. You are, my psychotic friend, a coward. You advocate stopping animal research by any means necessary but are unwilling to stop it yourself. You hide behind blogs and grand speeches whereby you let loose your idiocy. I’ve read your stuff, it’s pathetic. Like a little six year old hurling insults. You and your friends like you (Jason Miller, Steve Best etc) are willing to terrorize people to get your message out. Regardless of what YOU might call it, the definition is still terrorism. Finally people are willing to stand up and say, “YOU’RE NUTS” and what really pisses you and your lunatic friends off is that our rallies have more people than yours. Now, go ahead and throw your worst at me. In the long run your a sad, pathetic loser and you mean nothing. You’re nothing but bullies and eventually the bullies get put down.

  10. 17

    Camille, you are a deluded woman. I was originally going to say “evil”, but it’s more like “misguided”. You truly think you’re doing something good. Yet you fall prey to all the same logical fallacies that birthers, teabaggers, 9/11 truthers, anti-abortionists, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh get caught up in, time and again. Rather than looking at evidence, you make assumptions (e.g. that there’s big money in being explicitly cruel to animals), and use those to justify your lofty rhetoric about how evil and despotic and tyrannical and sadistic the scientists involved in testing must be — without any evidence to support it, of course. The best you can do to support your lies is to grossly distort the meaning of scientific papers about the reduction of pain to indicate sociopathy.

    And you use, as Jack said, this hate speech to cry out with the age old call of “will no-one rid me of this meddlesome priest”, helpfully providing the personal information of people who speak out against your terrorism. You yourself are skirting the edge of legality, because it’s perfectly legal to provide public information, but it gets sketchy when violence happens and people say “well gee gosh and golly, I had no idea people would take this stuff seriously.” When people started escalating the rhetoric about liberals being evil during the American presidential election, Sarah Palin was taken to task for whipping up and fomenting violent emotions amongst her followers. She wasn’t held accountable, however, when people attempted to assassinate Obama (and other blacks), but that’s just because she had the backing of the Republican party, and the news media that suckles at their teat. You don’t have that privilege. If something happens to anyone on any list of yours, you’ll be the first suspect, even if you didn’t do the killing directly.

    Think about that. You don’t actually know anything about what goes on in the laboratory, and yet you’re willing to make stuff up, because making stuff up makes your case better than the evidence does. And you’re even willing to incite people to do violence against others (that is THE ONLY REASON TO POST CONTACT INFORMATION INCLUDING ADDRESSES FOR DISSENTING VOICES). You attempt to scare people into agreement and you demonize those that still disagree. You are the lowest of the lowest of propagandists. Please don’t contact me again, whether by Twitter or by commenting or by e-mail or by somehow stalking me in person (e.g. by digging up more information about me than you’ve already done).

    Fair warning, the contact information you’ve already posted on your website and the allusions to violence against those that disagree with you are damaging evidence enough to prove that you’re attempting to incite others to violence against me and others who happen to disagree with you.

    Which, by the way, is terrorism.

  11. 18

    And for the record, mainly because I think it’s fucking hilarious that Camille seems to think I am an anonymous coward – who posts under his full name – I am not that hard to find. That said, I would recommend against it. I have no qualms about letting law enforcement know if I am being harassed. And should anyone show up in person to threaten me, they should know that the cops in this town are very prompt and that I am armed.

  12. 19


    You have me all wrong… I despise terrorists who harm sentient beings with impunity.

    I completely support & defend our freedom fighters (the ALF, ARM and assorted Revolutionary Cells) who understand that oppressors will not willingly relinquish their power — they must be stopped by any means necessary. And I’m thankful we have compassionate & altruistic individuals willing to address the terrorist vivisectors on their own terms.

    I’m shocked!!! Your rallies have more people than ours??? Understand this, you can gather together all of the indoctrinated, sycophantic drones you can recruit — enjoy the spectacle as they march together in step to the beat of their capitalist overlords. Do you think we’re impressed by the pathetic display of common mainstream conformity? Actually, having you all in one place might prove beneficial from my perspective.

    You fail to grasp an essential element in this equation. Animal liberationists are not driven by money. We get no promotions, job offers or raises. We simply want to end the suffering of the innocent animals. We are energized, gaining momentum, and are unphased by your impotent whining.

    But I am not a violent person. I simply want the violent people dead.

  13. 21

    Camille: What the f*ck?! You’re not violent but you want others to do your dirty work for you? Very brave you coward. If you don’t like animal research then YOU do something about it! Don’t get others to do what you’re to afraid to do. It’s the very definition of coward. If you hate capitalism so much, LEAVE THE FUCKING COUNTRY!! We wouldn’t miss you. If you lot are so proud and confident of your position then come out from behind the masks!! When we march we don’t hide. Just remember though that those on the receiving end of your brand of terrorism will eventually fight back and you may not like the results.

  14. 22

    I’m sure Camile and her ilk would be the first to cry and whine that she was being threatened if I posted a list of all the members of Thomas Paine’s Corner, their addresses and phone numbers. Then, on a completely unrelated note happen to mention that in my state the Barrett .50 caliber rifle, used by the US military as a sniper rifle, is legal and for sale. Oh, and in the right hands it’s accurate to over a mile. Theoretically it would mean that the intended target wouldn’t even hear the shot that would cause their head to completely explode. I’m just making conversation of course because I absolutely hate violence and would never do so myself, but Camille lives in Florida.

    If fact, I know for a fact that Camille got all bent out of shape before because I saw her little whining campaign on her website before. She, supposedly, felt theatened by something and started a whole crybaby writing campaign. Pathetic! The thing about inciting violence, Camille, is that sometimes it comes back to kick you in the ass.

  15. 23

    Adversarial websites? You? Really? Why would anyone ever organize entire websites against your hateful ass?

    So then I Googled your name, and this came up as one of the hits:

    Is there any truth to the claims that you let your mother starve to death, and killed your cat by feeding it a vegan diet? Were you aware cats are carnivores? Are you aware that makes you a hypocrite?

    On second thought, don’t answer that. You’re a vicious troll, but nothing more than a troll. I’ve decided to ban you. Congratulations! You make my only perma-ban. Even Zdenny only managed perma-moderation, and JTankers got a reprieve when he went silent after we didn’t die from the LHC.

  16. 25


    Please control yourself!!!

    What an emotional tirade… very unbecoming from one who basks in the warm afterglow of terrorist camaraderie… if I didn’t know any better, I’d think you were unbalanced…

    and scared… AND PATHETIC!

    My information is all over the web… posted on adversarial websites… I’ve never whined about it… I certainly never threatened anyone. That’s where we differ, Jack. I don’t make empty threats. And I need no one to do my dirty work for me.

    I’m relieved that we have freedom fighters who deal with sociopathic vivisectors.

    You, Jack… you’re a poor excuse for a human being… violent, emotional, and nestled snuggly into an equally abhorrent community of empathy-challenged humans. I can handle you all by myself!

    Drop by for a visit anytime…

  17. 28

    How would you have dealt with her, then, Becca, other than Googling her name when she claimed others have dealt with her in the past, and finding out some less than savoury characters consider her their enemy as well? Especially given all the threats and violent overtures and *personal information* the woman has posted, and apparently has no compunctions against continuing to post?

    I’m not about to take any kind of moral high ground with her. Sorry if your own feathers get ruffled by that fact.

  18. 29


    I see you posted my comments on your website. Well at least you printed them in their entirety which usually isn’t like you. I’m not sure why since nothing I said could possibly be considered at all threatening to a sane, rational person…oh, I see the problem. If you acted this way as a child I can see why your mom locked you in the closet. I’ll be damned if I know why she let you out though?

  19. 31

    Jason, what’s with all the kooks around here lately? Become flypaper for freaks, have you?

    I think banning Camille is probably the only real course of action available to you. Trying to have a meaningful conversation with a passive-aggressive terrorist isn’t going to get you anywhere, except for maybe a small worry for your safety. That said, it’s certainly important to occasionally lift the rocks these freaks hide beneath to remind people what kind of slime extremist ideology can turn individuals into. Sadly, sickos like Camille and her ilk aren’t difficult to find these days.

    Anybody else find Camille reminds you of Stacey Keach’s character Cameron from the (excellent) movie American History X? She would never get mixed up in any violence herself, but she has no problem egging others on in her stead. She doesn’t want to get her hands dirty, because she’s too important! If she had ever got arrested breaking the law and faced real prison time, I have no doubts that she’d turn over on her fellow freaks in order to cut a plea-bargain deal.

    Like most of those animal-rights extremists, she’s a complete hypocrite. Notice how, other than the veganism, she seems to be living a relatively average North American lifestyle (ignoring some of the more creepy aspects reported on ED)? Such a lifestyle requires that a massive amount of damage to be done to the Earth. Of course, much like most people that eat meat never have to see a slaughterhouse floor, Camille never has to view the most of the environmental damage that her lifestyle causes, and so her fake activism is all the more pathetic.

  20. 32

    Thanks for the support Jason, it all helps!

    I have to say that every now and then I have to remind myself that Camille does actually represent an aspect of the AR movement and isn’t some kind of parody, and that she really does believe the rubbish she comes out with.

  21. 33

    Sinned: I rather like stirring up some controversy and turning over those rocks. One of these days I’ll get an IED to the face if I keep it up, but hey, that’ll just make me a martyr.

    I should tone down the “I’ll get blown up” jokes though. Jodi doesn’t like them. Can’t say’s I blame her, I wouldn’t like the thought of her being blown up either.

    Paul, it’s my pleasure. Someone needs to stand up to the lies and hypocrisy that the extremists come up with. And since I’m not particularly fearful (because that would mean the terrorists win!), my course of action is predetermined. Anyway, I have to be consistent in my support of science over lunacy, though religion is my usual beat.

  22. 34

    Ah, I see the crazy militant vegan has backed down since you’ve unearthed how nuts she is.

    Fuck, if you don’t like animal testing, don’t fucking use modern medicine or anything that’s come from animal testing.

    Because it’s realistically the best model we have, seeing as we don’t know everything about bodies and couldn’t feasibly make a computerized alternative.

    Or does she, because of her more-than-is-healthy love for furry little animals, want to see human civilization go down the tubes?

    Feed this one to the lions. The dumb bitch wants to kill people for animal use? She’s the psychopath, not us.

  23. 36

    Katharine, I think you will find that Mr Thibeault shat it and barred her from any further communication. He was not winning any argument and he and his lackeys resorted to personal insults..a poor show indeed. As for Mr Thibeault pray tell..what does go on in the testers lab? I would put my money on animal rights activists knowing far more than he cares to imagine.

    I’d like to know Katherine, why other species (which ones are you referring to?) are realistically a “Better model?”…better than what? I’d also like to know why you believe that human civilisation will “Go down the tubes” if animal testing ended. These are genuine questions and in your own time..

  24. 37


    Note that there was no shortage of personal insults coming from Camillo. View how she started her very first link/post on the subject: “In the time honored tradition of cowards…” She also has no problem with lying or misrepresenting other peoples’ viewpoints in order to denigrate and demonize them.

    I don’t speak for anybody else here, but when it comes to insults, I tend to give back what I receive in exchanges with extreme denialists like Camillo. If she wants to use loaded language in a debate, then she’s going to get the same thrown back at her.

  25. 38

    Oh, and I neglected to mention that I don’t deal well in conversation with people who want to kill me, hence I’m not willing to offer any sympathy for Camillo being banned or mocked.

  26. 39

    Ms McGeady, I “shat it” because I recognized it was impossible to try to reason a terrorist out of a position they didn’t reach via reason but rather via emotion (much like most religious folks — tell me you’re not religiously pro-animal to the point that you’re anti-human, go ahead!), and was tired of the cycle of escalation going on between two factions of human beings, one of whom thinks it’s okay to kill humans to save non-humans that are in considerably less danger or pain than the emotional terrorists would ever care to admit, and those that have reasoned themselves into a position where the least harm is done to the least amount of sentient creatures possible to achieve the greatest good for all the sentient creatures involved.

    If you want to know what goes on inside the laboratories, why don’t you ask the scientists? Or the lawmakers and oversight bodies? Oh, right, you don’t trust their information, they’re obviously covering things up. Except you have no evidence of such, so you resort to emotional pleas and ridiculous rationales like “extensional self defense” to indicate that you’re saving some animals from humane euthanasia by exploding people. Or even just by calling them names, harassing them, and inculcating an environment of fear.

    Tell me again, who’s the terrorist? There is no blood on my hands. How much is on yours?

    Hypocrites, all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *