Online resource for my Psychology course- ANIMAL RIGHTS TERRORISTS!

Trying to brainwash us against being anti-vivsection?

1 - 7 of 7 posts

Aimee VIC • Posts: 957

1 12 Aug 2011

So I'm studying Psychology at uni and our textbooks come with an access code so we can use Pearson online resources to assist in our learning the contents of the text book.
First I chose to do a multiple choice quiz on Chapter 1, then after that I saw another option called 'Media Assignments' and one was called
"Animal Rights Terrorists"

What you are supposed to do is watch a video than answer 2 multiple choice questions.

The video talked about a case at Oregon University Primate Research Centre where 'animal rights terrorists' were sending razorblades to vivisectors with notes allegedly saying that if they don't stop their experimentation on monkeys, they will get much worse. It shows a website (possibly ALF related?) with a list of all names and addresses of vivisectors.
A senior scientist then labels the researchers 'heroes' for continuing their research in the face of these threats- calling their work legal and ethical.

Then the 2 questions are

Question 1.
Mailing razor blades to scientists is an effective way to voice one's concern over the rights of animal research participants.

- Agree
- Neutral
- Disagree

Question 2.
Which of the following statements is LEAST likely to be offered by an animal research supporter?

- Our compassion for animals is based on their perceived similarity to humans (Plous, 1993).
- Research on animals would not be done unless it was very important to society.
- Only a small proportion of psychological studies actually use animal participants.
- Animals themselves have benefited from animal research.

Unless you answer
1. Disagree
2. Our compassion for animals is based on their perceived similarity to humans (Plous, 1993)

You are WRONG.

Weird. It was just so strange that that video was on there. It had nothing to do with the topics under review and it's telling you what your opinion should be on it... confused

And that second question was just odd.

The only explanation I can think of is that the AR community is a real threat in the eyes of vivisectors and they are trying to get uni students brainwashed while they can.

What do you think?

Andrewxxx VIC • Posts: 272

2 12 Aug 2011

Hmmm...

I pretty much think anyone using the word terrorist for anything that doesn't involve killing people needs to start looking at their own shitty behavior and stop saying "Anyone who doesn't agree with me is a terrorist". That said, making threats against people isn't the nicest way to go about things, but hey, I don't do horrible shit and nobody threatens me.

Emilia WA • Posts: 285

3 12 Aug 2011

Research on animals would not be done unless it was very important to society.
-Lies
Only a small proportion of psychological studies actually use animal participants.
-LIES
Animals themselves have benefited from animal research.
-Only if it for veterinary use, otherwise LIES!

You probably already know Aimee, but for everyone else, there have been a lot of cruel psychological experiments done on animals. This seems like some kind of justification that doing these tests are ok, if it going to benefits humans in the end.

As for the razorblades being sent to vivisectors, oh boy they were lucky. They could have been sent so much worse. As far as I am concerned, vivisectors are emotionless gits. Maybe they should do tests on them to see how their brains work, because I am sure we can learn a lot from their messed up brains.

They are not heroes. People who inflict pain are NEVER EVER heroes.

Aimee, I think studying psych, your ethics are going to be challenged quite a bit. Do not stay silent and do not let anyone tell you otherwise.

As for why they included this on the online content, it is very weird...

+ 1

Supercalifragilisticexpiali... QLD • Posts: 199

4 12 Aug 2011

This is how I look at it,

"Mailing razor blades to scientists is an *** effective *** way to voice one's concern over the rights of animal research participants."

If one wants to voice one's concern over the rights of animal research participants I don't believe this method was "effective" (Definition of effective: Successful in producing a desired or intended result) as the end result here is that the scientists were possibly frightened and/or probably became even more defensive. If one wanted to frighten the scientists then their course of action would have indeed been effective.

Aimee VIC • Posts: 957

5 12 Aug 2011

Emilia said:

Aimee, I think studying psych, your ethics are going to be challenged quite a bit. Do not stay silent and do not let anyone tell you otherwise.

As for why they included this on the online content, it is very weird...

Yeah I'm in my third year of a double major Psychology/Psychophysiology. It's Psychophysiology that's been the tougher one to handle. It's heavily neuroscience based so most of what we learn has come from sticking things in monkey's brain and making them complete tasks. Our labs included animal dissections, but I stated my position to the course convenor and although he's a vivisector and tried to defend it for a few minutes, he respected my ethics so I did not have to attend those labs.

A few of my lecturers being vivisectors means it shines through in the way that they teach, and I hate that they may be planting seeds in students to see animals as nothing but test subjects for possible human benefit.

With Psychology, I walked out of the room at lectures covering Harry Harlow and Pavlov's dogs- no thanks!!

So don't worry- I always stay true to who I am and I'll never back down.

This online thing just spun my head around!! huh

Emilia WA • Posts: 285

6 12 Aug 2011

That sounds so horrible. I don't know how you can stand to be around those people.

katherooni SA • Posts: 209

7 15 Aug 2011

I dont agree with animal testing at all. From my understanding, most of the drugs etc out there contain the same ingredients in different doses with not many brand new ones regularly coming out (correct me if i'm wrong). So they are known to be safe for human use. I was at a cardiology conference last week, all the speakers were referring back to 'animal models' in their studies. I hate it, knowing that I'm doing what i love but also promoting what i hate! confused

While i was there i was chatting to a someone who was testing stem cells for regenerating myocardium (heart muscle) on rats, having to induce heart attacks and then treat with this new stem cell concoction. He was telling me that he hates doing it and they are anaesthetised during it, and he even puts a local anaesthetic when he gives them an injection!
I'm sure he's very nice to them but......its so wrong!
We are so over medicated its infuriating. dont eat meat and eat more veggies, you will probably lose weight, reduce the chance of getting diabetes, heart disease, hypertension!!!! dont be so selfish lazy!!!
/rant