Whiplash Causes UK Controversy On Animal Testing

Thanks to Video-Fenky for pointing out a UK Telegraph article discussing controversy over the content of Eidos-produced platform game Whiplash, which is "being criticized as 'irresponsible' by police and MPs" in England, because it "depicts animals being abused in a laboratory, including one experiment in which a hamster is fired from a cannon." Labor MP Ian Gibson said he "feared that children would gain a distorted view of animal experimentation", and a spokesperson against animal cruelty "claimed that the game made light of animal suffering, which was offensive." Whiplash is not yet out in the UK, and was released before Christmas in the States to little fanfare, though it garnered some critical adulation.

Comments

Let's all say it together....

[Kevin Burtch]

"Get a sense of humor!"

This is parodical, do they really think it's serious?

Why didn't they go off the handle with all those flash-games that have been round for many years?
You know the ones, the hamster in the microwave yelling obscenities at you, the frog in the blender, the gerbil gun (target is a hole in a wall), etc.

Re:Let's all say it together....

[eggstasy]

Hear, hear!
If you're offended by something then it's probably your fault for being a weakling, unprepared for what are perfectly normal occurences in the real world. Shit happens, learn how to build yourself some character and deal with it or you will live and die emotionally immature.
Personally, I wish these idiots would all go away. First Janet and now this. Will someone think of the children? More specifically, the harm all these faux moralists are doing to them?

um.

[kabocox]

Wouldn't this be a nice healthy outlet for kids to get their very restrained creativity loose in. We already "know" that anyone that does any harm to an animal as a child will grow up to be a serial killer. Well, lets expand that myth to include any virtual animal destruction. Why not a save the demons group? Or a save the virtual represtantion of enemy solders group? Nope, these folks just want us to leave the critters alone. In a digital envirnment, why? I'd say it would be wrong to simulate a human with emotions and full human thought, and shot at in in Doom 999. But animals? Nope, let the folks have their fun.

seriously

[Grayskies]

i believe this is a new low for censorship. call PETA!

Re:seriously

[Anonymous Coward]

People Eating Tasty Animals

Distorted view

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if you consider that many medical schools (US and abroad) still have a live dissection....I just don't see how the stuff in this game is much worse or 'distorted'.

I'm not a PETA follower or anything like that, but brutality takes on various forms in the real world and these people seem to be more concerned about a game than reality. Get concerned about what's really happening people, come on..

Re:Distorted view

[orthogonal]

Well, if you consider that many medical schools (US and abroad) still have a live dissection....I just don't see how the stuff in this game is much worse or 'distorted'.

Because without medical students training by "live dissection" (vivisection) of animals, they'd be opening up humans without any experience -- resulting in more dead humans.

Believe me, I take no pleasure in the suffering of animals in laboratory testing, and I'm sympathetic to proposals, like Richard Dawkins, to more strictly limit testing of Primates -- both for reasons of consanguinity and to ensure that test results are not distorted by the animals' living conditions.

But as someone with a spiral of metal in my right coronary artery -- a stent which by holding the artery open, keeps my alive -- I'm not about to ask medical student to limit their surgical training to oranges or manikins or thought experiments.

As to distortion in the game, I think few if any medical students ever shoot hamsters out of cannon. But if they did, I'd be inclined to give the scientist or doctor -- someone with several years of training -- the benefit of the doubt.

Plenty of scientific experiments, involving animals or not, are regularly the target of derision by non-scientists: the late Senator William Proxmire made a regular joke of scientist with his "Golden Fleece" awards. The joke, however, was often on Proxmire, as would later turn out he was criticizing real and important research just because he didn't understand the methodologies involved.

The real problem here is that the game lampoons science that neither the game's authors nor the game's users understand well enough to fairly and impartially evaluate. To "bring it home" to Slashdot, it would be as if a game depicted a computer running linux as a slow and unfriendly old VAX/VMS machine with a command prompt reading
"$ Hey let's pirate some songs, write a few viruses and h4x0r a bank's network! >"

I suppose it is should be satisfyingly ironic that thanks to modern science and medicine, we all have can sit down at a PC as good as anything an entire country could have afforded in 1960, and reckon that with a life expectancy into the eighties we have the leisure time to play games that spit into the face of the scientists and doctors who got us here.

Two different arguments

[Pluvius]

Labor MP Ian Gibson said he "feared that children would gain a distorted view of animal experimentation", and a spokesperson against animal cruelty "claimed that the game made light of animal suffering, which was offensive."

Well, at least the MP's argument makes a little sense, unlike the other one, which shows a lack of distinction between fantasy and reality. Animal experimentation is a much maligned area of science, and much of that indignation is undeserved. Suggesting that all scientists do is torture cute, fuzzy animals certainly isn't helping us go away from these preconceived notions.

Rob

Re:Two different arguments

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont understand, MPs? Police?

Since when has this portion of our society become so concerned with the welfare of our children?

And why do they think they have more parenting skills than everyone else? Since they obviously know whats right? /sarcasm..

Re:Two different arguments

[orthogonal]

I dont understand, MPs? Police?

a note to our American and our Commonwealth readers:

In the U.S., "MP" is most commonly used as an abbreviation for "Military Police" -- members of the military whose duty include police jurisdiction over their fellow servicemen, or occupied territories.

In Britain and its Commonwealth nations, "MP" is most commonly used an abbreviation for "Member of Parliament" -- elected officials serving in the national legislature, with the reference most often to the British House of Commons, but also applicable to Parliaments of the Commonwealth nations.

Too much is too much

[lake2112]

When will it end? Next up on the block are sports games because we can't have games with competition. I mean kids today might lose and we cant have that. It's cartoon violence people. This has been around since the 1950's, and god forbid a kid plays this game. Its much better if a kid is playing this than Grand Theft Auto III.

Re:Too much is too much

[Anonymous Coward]

There are already groups of people trying to ban Sports, especially boxing.

Seems everyone knows best on how to run your life. Trying to protect you from the evils of life, and you better agree, or else.

Re:Too much is too much

[robnauta]

There are already groups of people trying to ban Sports, especially boxing

I think they succeeded a long time ago. I can vaguely remember 10-15 years ago one would occasionally see boxing on TV, or at least a summary of a title fight. But for the last 10 years the sports programs in Europe sometimes mention the result, and occasionally even show a press photograph of the fight, but video seems to be too expensive, even a 1-minute summary is impossible. Blame it on US pay-per-view and greedy promoters trying to milk the last dollars out of everybody.

Let's show kids animal experiments vids instead

[lightspawn]

a spokesperson against animal cruelty "claimed that the game made light of animal suffering, which was offensive."
That's how comedy (+parody) works. M.A.S.H. made light of human suffering, but got people to think about war and such.

Plus, the game is very light-hearted in a Sam & Max way. It will not be confused with reality any more than a typical Itchy & Scratchy cartoon.

Is there some U.K. law that states works of fiction may not be offensive?

Labor MP Ian Gibson said he "feared that children would gain a distorted view of animal experimentation"
Children? In the states, the game was rated 'T' for teen. U.K. has its own ratings; I believe the equivalent rating is '13' or something like that.

You know, some nights I can't sleep because I keep thinking about all those cop shows which may give children a distorted view of law enforcement. This kind of thing should be illegal.

Art should faithfully represent reality. People have no business making up stuff.

Re:Let's show kids animal experiments vids instead

[August_zero]

I am not sure if I should find some solace at least that it isn't just the angry mothers* in the US that have their heads shoved so far up their collective asses that they can't tell forests from trees from hemorrhoids. Once in a while it is nice to be reminded that people the world over can still be just as anal, self-important and myopic as people in my home country.

Everybody is all for freedom of speech as long as the speech they are protecting is their own, as soon as you make light of or take an opposite position to, well you get something like this.

*fathers, and child-free individuals as well

Re:Let's show kids animal experiments vids instead

[Anonymous Coward]

"Plus, the game is very light-hearted in a Sam & Max way."

Remember that scene in the beginning where you're just standing there, stuck, until you are willing to just turn a cat inside out for no apparent reason, and there's a letter inside?

And people think GTA is sick... :)

What's wrong with the world today????

[foooo]

If you can't fire rodents out of cannons what CAN you do???

Re:What's wrong with the world today????

[satanami69]

I supposed you could hit pengiuns with a baseball bat
My personal best is 321 ft.

Re:What's wrong with the world today????

[DanCT]

Do anyone remember Full Throtle? The little toy rabbits taking that epic walk over a mine field... Damn, that really meant something for me during my childhood...

Reality

[EnglishTim]

Th reality of extremist animal rights activism in the UK at the moment is that medical research using animals is under a serious threat due to the violent actions of the activists. A top UK university recently had to curtail its animal research due to the sheer cost of security that would be required to ensure the safety of its researchers.

There is currently a battle for the hearts and minds of the British public over animal testing. Unfortunately the non-animal-testing bunch are louder and have a ready stock of pictures of fluffy kittens with wires coming out of their heads. All those whose lives or reatives lives have been saved due to treatments that are the result of animal testing do not have the same kind of arresting image to get behind, and most do probably not even know that they would likely not be alive if not for animal testing.

Yes, the realits of animal testing is not always pleasant, but neither is a world in which your loved ones die of ailments that should be curable.

Re:Reality

[sydb]

Like any reasonable person, I think that the fuss being made about depictions of cruelty to animals in a game is ridiculous. The content of fiction is just that, and hurts no-one, and if its entertaining, so be it.

(At this point I'd like to remind everyone that humans are animals).

But the belief that the suffering of non-humans in medical experimentation is justifiable by the possible benefits to mankind is equally ridiculous. What moral foundations is this attitude based upon?

Fundamentally, the foundation must be that the suffering of humans (by way of disease) is more significant than the suffering of non-humans.

We can further divide the anti-animal group into two camps:

* Those who refute the existence of non-human suffering

* Those who accept the existence of non-human suffering but claim it to be inferior to human suffering.

Both camps exhibit one fundamental deviation from reason. The only real evidence that anyone has for the existence of suffering is their own personal experience. These two camps take this sample size of one and extrapolate their findings to the benefit of their entire species and to the exclusion of all others. This is clearly a bigotted, unscientific and illogical position.

Those who simply refuse to accept that non-humans can suffer display simple blinkered ignorance. They can have no justification for their stance.

Those who hold that animal suffering exists generally, but that human suffering is a superior form, exhibit more subtle flaws in their reasoning.

* They admit suffering exists, hence they admit sentience of animal life.

* Without any rational possibility of understanding sentience other that which they possess, they immediately cast all beings similar in appearance in the same mental mould, and damn all others to an inferior mould.

The argument most frequently trotted out, and to which you subscribe, is that the suffering of innocent animals is 'nasty' but given that your loved one's may get some life extension out of the deal, you are happy to accept it.

Perhaps I'm from a different planet, but this reads to me thus:

"Its my feelings that count above all others. I'd be upset if people I loved were hurt, so they come next. Other people I haven't met but who share some DNA with me come after that - 'cos they're a bit like me. Don't want to know about the rest"

Given our understanding of the selfish gene, its not surprising this attitude exists. But given humans consider themselves above the limitations of their genes - "above the animals" - it stinks of the utmost hypocrisy.

Surely an animal "above all animals" can elevate its thinking above the selfish dictates of its DNA.

Let me just say that my mother and father have both had cancer. They were cured by chemotherapy; however I would not use their longevity as an excuse for non-human testing. I lost my best friend to an unexplained death. His absence is a continual ache to me, but I would not have him back if it meant innocent suffering.

The animals upon which we experiment in labs are innocent slaves being extorted for the highest price - their lives and freedom - to a clumsy, cruel, stupid and conceited master, The master hides his actions from his own miserable compassion behind a veil of self-deceit.

Re:Reality

[blincoln]

A top UK university recently had to curtail its animal research due to the sheer cost of security that would be required to ensure the safety of its researchers.

Good. While I'm sure there are some less inhuman uses for animal testing than others, I can't see how anyone can think that the vast majority of it (e.g. sticking rabbits in restraints so that cosmetics and cleaning chemicals can be put into their eyes, sewing kittens' eyes shut to determine what the effect is on them if they never experience visual stimuli, repeatedly breaking dogs' bones in veterinary school so that students can practice setting them, then killing the dogs when the semester is over, vivisecting animals without anaesthetic because "it might skew the test results," etc.) does anything to elevate us as a species.

Anyhow, since most people seem not to have actually *played* this game (which is a shame, since it's great):

You play two animals who are escaping from a caricaturized corporation which tests on animals. Part of your objective is to free as many of the other animals as you can on your way out.

I fail to see what's so potentially horrible about that. If the British are so afraid of exposing children to what is effectively a cartoon's point of view, then their position must be pretty weak to begin with.

Re:Reality

[DAldredge]

They are just stupid animals...

Re:Reality

[Anonymous Coward]

"Its my feelings that count above all others. I'd be upset if people I loved were hurt, so they come next. Other people I haven't met but who share some DNA with me come after that - 'cos they're a bit like me. Don't want to know about the rest"

Yup. Sounds right to me. That's how we work.

Given our understanding of the selfish gene, its not surprising this attitude exists. But given humans consider themselves above the limitations of their genes - "above the animals" - it stinks of the utmost hypocrisy.

We accuse people of hypocrisy every day, especially of politicians who have affairs or otherwise act in their self-interest instead of adhering to principles that they supposedly believe in. But in reality, everyone's principles are just "best cases" they'd like to see, not unwavering behavioural laws. There is always a situation where you put your principles to one side. You may believe in the principle "Thou shalt not kill", but it would be very different if Hannibal Lecter was running at you screaming with a samurai sword, and all you had was a gun.

The reason that animal rights groups don't like animal testing is not because they believe in certain principles that oppose it. That's putting the cart before the horse. Instead, it's because animal testing makes them feel unhappy in some way, and they just point to those principles to justify why that is. This is why peoples' self interest will always over-ride their "principles". If someone has a principle, it's usually possible to think of an extreme situation where they'd add a qualifier. "Thou shalt not kill anyone... unless that person is trying to kill me and my family." etc

I lost my best friend to an unexplained death. His absence is a continual ache to me, but I would not have him back if it meant innocent suffering.

What if the suffering of a few innocent animals meant that 200 others didn't die? 200,000? Millions? The vets that break a bone in a single dog will go on to fix the bones in many others. Remember your Star Trek: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

Of course, this doesn't justify cosmetic testing, because it's hard to argue that cosmetics are a "need".

The animals upon which we experiment in labs are innocent slaves being extorted for the highest price - their lives and freedom - to a clumsy, cruel, stupid and conceited master, The master hides his actions from his own miserable compassion behind a veil of self-deceit.

Yeah, whatever. All scientists are evil kitty torturers, and they never come up with anything of any value. Right.

Re:Reality

[NonSequor]

"I am a man; nothing human is alien to me"
--Publius Terentius Afer

In life, we human beings only have eachother. As such, I am committed to the survival of every person. Call it selfish if you like, but I believe it to be every creature's imperative to preserve its own kind.

Re:Reality

[xalres]

It's all well and good to say that now, being a reasonably healthy person, but think about it. Without animal testing you shouldn't have survived much past birth because babies are suceptible to all kinds of diseases. Mortality rates were insanely high before the advent of modern medicine. Fortunately for you we've developed vaccines for most childhood diseases. Oh, and mom probably wouldn't have managed to survive childbirth without current medical technology.

And I'm willing to bet that if you came down with something that was easily treated using modern medicine you wouldn't think twice about accepting treatment. Be thankful you live in this day and age where we're able to treat almost anything that can go wrong before you get all high and mighty and start looking down your nose at everybody.

Re:Reality

[Anonymous Coward]

Using a pulp television show to justify your ethical theory... brilliant! I'm sure the Jews and Chinese that were experimented on during WWII(in the name of science) would love to hear your arguments about the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few.

Re:Reality

[sydb]

Without animal testing you shouldn't have survived much past birth because babies are suceptible to all kinds of diseases.

Yes, statistically human children have a better chance of survival past birth with the benefit of today's medicine.

But it's not necessarily the case that without animal testing we would not have modern medicine capable of a similar statistical improvement in child mortality.

I don't want to base my morality on falsehoods - morality must be built on the truth, or at least as close as we get to the truth. So I happily admit we have gained knowledge from animal testing. But animal testing is just one source of medical knowledge, and as I've explained I don't see how the ends can justify the means.

Oh, and mom probably wouldn't have managed to survive childbirth without current medical technology.

I've already explained my feelings about basing moral decisions on kinship. Anyway, see my thoughts above.

And I'm willing to bet that if you came down with something that was easily treated using modern medicine you wouldn't think twice about accepting treatment.

You're bet is safe but you don't further your argument by placing it. Suffering caused by animal testing in the past cannot be undone by refusal to accept treatment based on the knowledge gained during such testing. In fact, if we act by weighing benefit against suffering, it is our responsibility to make the maximum use, to the benefit of all sentient creatures, of the knowledge we have gained from past reprehensible acts.

Be thankful you live in this day and age where we're able to treat almost anything that can go wrong before you get all high and mighty and start looking down your nose at everybody.

I just try to be honest and get close to the truth. It's you who looks down your nose at everyone from your exhalted position at the centre of the universe, placing everyone else in graduated proximity dependent on familiarity and similarity.

Re:Reality

[sydb]

My principles go along the lines of "live and let live" or "treat other as you would be treated". I define "others" as "sentient beings".

I expect similar behaviour from those around me capable of putting that type of thought together. That's why I'm not offended by the cruelty of wild animals; they simply don't know any better. Humans generally do.

That Star Trek quote - in Star Trek, the few (or the one) are volunteers, not victims.

Re:Reality

[sydb]

Oh yes, I can see why a clever-looking Classical quote wins your argument!

In life, we human beings only have eachother.

Well, it feels that way sometimes but I would contend that it's only our genes that make us feel that way; fortunately we have complex brains that give us the chance to act in a more sophisticated way.

Call it selfish if you like, but I believe it to be every creature's imperative to preserve its own kind.

Yes it is selfish. It's the imperative of the gene. If we hold ourselves to be "above animals" then this can only be demonstrated by freeing ourselves from the shackles of our genetic drives.

Re:Reality

[xalres]

So it's fine for you to condemn medical advances gained through animal suffering while at the same time taking full advantage of them. Somehow I get the impression that you don't truly believe in the convictions of your statements because of that. I don't like animal testing either, I just realize that it's a necessary evil.

Let's say they decide to skip animal testing and go straight to human testing for a drug without first figuring out if it turns living tissue to jelly. Will you sign up for that? Would you want anyone you know signing up for that? If you truly believed everything you just said you'd be first in line. After all, your suffering is no different or more relevant than an animal's right? Or would you rather humankind as a whole just stop trying to cure things because in order to do so we may have to harm some animals?

I'm not even going to bother with the "center of the exhalted universe" statement because I honestly can't understand where you got that impression.

Re:Reality

[sydb]

So it's fine for you to condemn medical advances gained through animal suffering while at the same time taking full advantage of them.

I said I can't accept using medical benefits to humans as a justification for animal testing. Then I said I can't change what has happened in the past so there is no point refusing treatment based on my distaste for the means by which the treatment was developed. The implication is that I don't want new treatments to be developed based on animal testing.

I continued to point out that given the suffering which was entailed in previous animal tests, to refuse treatment based on such past tests is to rub metaphorical salt in the wounds of those victim animals. Not only did they suffer for insufficient reason, they suffered for no reason at all! Therefore I am compelled to encourage the acceptance of existing treatments based on animal testing. It is our moral responsiblity to ensure that those animals did not suffer in vain.

Somehow I get the impression that you don't truly believe in the convictions of your statements because of that.

If you want to call me a troll, just call me it. I'm not. I believe what I am saying because it is derived from reasonable assumptions and reached through a logical progression, rather than some emotional gut feeling or go-with-the-flow laissez-faire.

Let's say they decide to skip animal testing and go straight to human testing...

Yes, sounds good to me, I'd volunteer for that (or accept payment from a private enterprise).

...for a drug without first figuring out if it turns living tissue to jelly. Will you sign up for that?

Strikes me that such a drug would be fairly unusual and this would be discovered before it got as far as on my skin, but anyway, given the small risk of this happening, and precautions to help prevent my entire body turning to jelly (test it on my appendix, maybe), yes, I'd be first in line to test a drug which had not been proven to leave my skin in an unjellied state.

After all, your suffering is no different or more relevant than an animal's right?

I didn't say no different, I said no more significant and certainly not sufficiently insignificant to justify animal testing.

Or would you rather humankind as a whole just stop trying to cure things because in order to do so we may have to harm some animals?

No, because there are other methods.

I'm not even going to bother with the "center of the exhalted universe" statement because I honestly can't understand where you got that impression.

You accused me of moral arrogance (looking down my nose at others - I don't, but I hold your views to be illogical and unreasonable). I pointed out the arrogance of those who consider mankind's benefit to be of greater significance than non-human animal suffering.

I'm not enjoying this anymore, I feel like I'm just restating everything because you are not reading my words properly.

Re:Reality

[xalres]

I think the issue of clarity has to do with your choice of words. I understand your point now (I hope) but it wasn't clear or concise at all. Word choice has a huge impact on how people are percieved, or to put it in a more "pedestrian" way - You explain to me the difference between "whilst" and "while" and I'll stop calling you an elitist bastard.

More to the point, speaking as someone who works at a place with an animal lab (don't get me wrong, I hate it), we have no way at all to tell what kind of effects a drug will have on living tissue. All we have are assumptions and hypotheses based on past research but that's about it. Until we see what it does to a living thing and categorize ALL of its side effects it is not allowed anywhere near human test subjects. That's not a moral decision on our part because we get off on torturing little helpless bunnies, that's federal law and it's there for a good reason.

Re:Reality

[NonSequor]

This drive is a part of me. It is one of the most important parts of me. To forsake this principle would be to forsake myself. This is simply how I am.

Re:Reality

[sydb]

Sorry if I was unclear at any point.

I wouldn't accuse those involved in research of enjoying the suffering of the lab animals. I know that they believe they are doing good work.

So I think there must be a tendency to rationalise away the suffering caused in this work, rather than conducting an honest analysis.

If you look at the replies to my post, there's not much in the way of serious refutations of my points, just throw-away statements which amount to "humans are more important than animals, deal with it, STFU".

About the effects on flesh: you're not seriously proposing that a chemical is going to turn flesh to jelly and no-one would know about this until it was tested? If it has that effect on flesh it'll most likely have that effect on other materials too! And we have some knowledge of the behaviour of chemicals either from their structure or from experience of their occurence in nature.

Anyway, I can take a little sample of skin from my body and drop some of your jellifying product on it with a pipette. Then we'll find out what happens. I know this wouldn't show long-term effects, but I don't know what would. I'm pretty sure it's possible to keep tissue alive articifically, though.

U can't be serious

[superpulpsicle]

These people have obviously never seen games like Final Fantasy where you'll probably kill a thousand wolves just to gain one level.

Re:U can't be serious

[MMaestro]

Games like Final Fantasy? Pfft. They haven't seenen games like Everquest where players form organizations dedicated to killing rats and other animals for the sake of money.

Especially that new Final Fantasy, which lets players auction off animal parts for money!

Consistency?

[DamnRogue]

These are the same people that exports comedy skits featuring parrots nailed to posts? Hello, Pot, this is Kettle...

Re:Consistency?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, the parrot was dead, okay? It's totally different.

..uh-oh, I just know what somebody's about to reply...

Re:Consistency?

[Krioni]

No it's not!

and yet silent over *real* experiments

[DrSkwid]

I don't rememeber so much fuss from any Members of Parliament about *real* experiments, such as when General Motors were using live pigs in car crash tests.

And I don't hear much support for Animal Rights prisoners from our elected representatives.

No, it's "I know, I'll get fucking worked up over video games, that'll get me in the papers"

fuck them

Re:and yet silent over *real* experiments

[AtaruMoroboshi]

You have totally missed the point. The representatives are worried about this from the OTHER side of the argument. "Animal Liberation" is such a big deal in the UK that it's extremely expensive to carry out any animal testing.

The complaint is that the game paints animal experimentation in a bad light, not that the game glorifies it.

.

Re:and yet silent over *real* experiments

[DrSkwid]

I haven't missed the point

Re:and yet silent over *real* experiments

[kyz]

And I don't hear much support for Animal Rights prisoners from our elected representatives.

Oh, you mean violent thugs who like to beat up scientists, set fires in laboratories, and write death threats to innocent people when they're not jacking off to kiddy porn?

"Animal Rights" thugs are sick, demented individuals who use "poor ikkle bunny wabbits" as an excuse to cause terror and mayhem. The quicker the police break up their evil, violent schemes and jail the ringleaders, the better.

I hope they all get a currently uncurable disease. That'll teach them for fucking with the progress of medical science.

Re:and yet silent over *real* experiments

[AtaruMoroboshi]

UH, yes you did, your post implies that the people in parliment said the opposite of what they did say. The members of parliment are PRO-VIVISECTION, not against it.

Your post makes no sense what so ever in that context, and everyone who modded you up didn't even read the article...

.

Re:and yet silent over *real* experiments

[DrSkwid]

> Oh, you mean violent thugs who like to beat up scientists, set fires in laboratories,

yes those good folk protecting those without a voice

> "Animal Rights" thugs are sick, demented individuals who use "poor ikkle bunny wabbits" as an excuse to cause terror and mayhem.

There are no excuses for hunting and shooting and vivisection, violence begats violence.

> I hope they all get a currently uncurable disease. That'll teach them for fucking with the progress of medical science.

I've got one thanks and it's put me out of action. Thankfully where one falls down there are hundreds ready to take his place.

Re:and yet silent over *real* experiments

[kyz]

There are no excuses for hunting and shooting and vivisection, violence begats violence.

There are no excuses for arson, ABH or death threats. I don't care if the pink rabbit told you to do it. Spread the word, pal: no more threats. No more trespass and damage. No more assault. If you or any of your like-minded chums try it on, you are going to jail.

I've got one thanks and it's put me out of action.

I hope you made good use of your Animal Research Abolition Card:

In the event of an accident or emergency, I will refuse all medical treatment developed and tested on animals, including, but not limited to, blood transfusions, anaesthetics, anticoagulants, antibiotics, sutures, open heart surgery and other types of surgery.

If I or my child suffers from a genetic illness or other serious condition, I will not allow any life-saving treatment developed through animal research.

None of my pets shall receive any veterinary vaccine or medicine that has been developed or tested on animals.

Feel free to live in your little vegan world where humans are inferior to animals, but don't try and take anyone with you.

Re:and yet silent over *real* experiments

[DrSkwid]

>Spread the word, pal: no more threats. No more trespass and damage. No more assault. If you or any of your like-minded chums try it on, you are going to jail.

Spread the word, pal.

Get ready for threats, tresspass and damage.

My chums are coming for you.

Re:and yet silent over *real* experiments

[kyz]

I'd feel much more threatened if you attached your real name and address to your comments. Anyone can do the "psycho vegan dolescum" act with the power of psuedonymity.

Re:and yet silent over *real* experiments

[DrSkwid]

I'm not threatening anyone.

Re:and yet silent over *real* experiments

[kyz]

I'm not threatening anyone.

Good. Keep it that way, unless you want to end up in jail.

Re:and yet silent over *real* experiments

[DrSkwid]

Seems like you're the one with the threats.

If you are doing vivisection or hunting I would advise watching your back.

Jail is the least of your worries.

Re:and yet silent over *real* experiments

[kyz]

Seems like you're the one with the threats.

I'm just reminding you. Making threats or committing criminal acts will not hinder the progress of medical science in the slightest. If you have any serious intentions of changing the laws of this country, write politely to your MP. If you're just looking for any old excuse for thuggery, well, I hope you like prison.

If you are doing vivisection or hunting I would advise watching your back. Jail is the least of your worries.

You amuse me. Please be more explicit about why I might want to "watch my back". Tell me all the details. I want to know exactly what you mean, please clarify your words.

Bah! "Stop! For The Children!"

[DLWormwood]

I've already ranted once about equating video games with kids stuff, thanks to Nintendo...

That's the second time today I've encountered this misconception.

So, then

[Anonymous Coward]

How about they show rabbits being shaved and having personal care products applied to their bare skin to see if they break out? Or better yet, mice being made to grow cancerous tumors so that new medicines can be evaluated?

This might at least please the gamers who a looking for "more realism".

Re:So, then

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell yeah.

I would also like a game where I slaughter things. Cows, sheep, whatever. With bonus points for creativity, like slowly dissolving the cow's skin with an acid spray or something.

great argument

[spir0]

"It is a nasty and vicious way of prejudicing young minds for the rest of their lives," said Dr Gibson. "Young people with fresh minds need to be brought into an understanding of the problem with both sides of the argument being put forward in a rational and reasonable way. Clearly such programmes are not bringing a balanced judgment to serious and difficult areas of understanding."

That sounds like a fantastic argument against religion.

Re:great argument

[Mike Hawk]

And your arguement presents both sides of the argument being put forward in a rational and reasonable way bringing a balanced judgement?

Oh wait, people only want their own side put forward, thanks for the additional example spir0!

PS Im sorry whatever religion you were exposed to was not presented in a balanced way, but don't let that prejudice your young mind (whatever your age) for the rest of your life.

Re:great argument

[spir0]

I just found my +6 Bastard Sword of Flamebait.

I take it you're religious. my comment wasn't meant to be an argument, but merely pointing out a possible argument. I don't want to get in a debate because I already know that religion is only something used to scare little kids. I believe in myself, not something invisible and intangible.

forcing children into religion at an early age doesn't show them balance. they are shown the "true way" according to those teaching them.

I was brought up in a perfectly balanced environment which allowed me to come to my own conclusions.

that is: people who are religious are either brought up that way from early childhood, or they have reached some desperate point in their lives and need something to hold on to.

which one are you Mike Hawk?

PS - I'm sorry that whatever religion you were exposed to purported to be presented in a balanced way, but don't let that prejudice your infantile mind.

Re:great argument

[Mike Hawk]

Interesting, when did you become so hateful?

people who are religious are either brought up that way from early childhood, or they have reached some desperate point in their lives and need something to hold on to.

This is a logical fallacy known as false dilemma. You have intentionally presented only 2 choices when in fact there are 3 or more. I thought you liked keeping things balanced?

Notice also how I remain reasonable and don't get mad. Why did you get mad spir0? Lets get to the root of the issue. What has filled you with this hate and prejudice?

As for your silly PS PS - I'm sorry that whatever religion you were exposed to purported to be presented in a balanced way, but don't let that prejudice your infantile mind. I don't think I ever indicated I was brought up in religion (I wasn't) or that I subscribe to any (I do), but I have been exposed and exposed myself to a variety of teachings and disciplines, secular and religious, and as you can see from our contrasting tones, am the better person for it. Also none of what I believe prevents me from believing in myself. Its becomeing increasingly clear you are speaking out of ignorance.

What has brought on this hate spir0? Who hurt you? I want to help.

Re:great argument

[spir0]

Interesting, when did you become so hateful?

After being introduced to people. quite early in my life as I recall.

I don't think I ever indicated I was brought up in religion (I wasn't) or that I subscribe to any (I do)

It was quite obvious from your reply.

I want to help.

I want to shit down your throat. we don't always get what we want. Just accept that and move on.

Re:great argument

[Mike Hawk]

I want to shit down your throat. we don't always get what we want. Just accept that and move on.

Doesn't make the strong point that religious folk are the problem. Please tell me what happened to you.

After being introduced to people. quite early in my life as I recall.

That would be the fallacy of unrepresentative sample. Hey, weren't you the one cheering the notion of balance? I seem to be the one that understands what that means.

Is there anything I can do to help?

Re:great argument

[spir0]

why do you feel the need to help? will that grant you a place in heaven?

and I have no interest in balance. you either misunderstood, or I misrepresented that fact. I have an interest in not forcing children how to think from an early age, brainwashing them, shall we say.

which is my original point. teaching children one perspective which is skewed is going to do them harm.

They might even end up like you. That would be sad indeed. Thinking that they are The One True Samaritan is dangerous.

Try and help yourself. Stop thinking about religion. Start thinking about yourself and how you can further YOUR life. Don't worry about others. You won't get an extra comfy chair in the sky set aside for you by doing the unknown will of an unknown god.

I'd offer to help you but that's stuppid because I don't care about you.

Re:great argument

[Mike Hawk]

I'd offer to help you but that's stuppid because I don't care about you.

To start at the end, this is clearly a lie since you made a journal about me. Its a shame that you must resort to blatant lies in such an informal discussion.

Now, as for my place in heaven...When did I ever state that I think there is a heaven? Religions do exist that do not hold such concepts. Once again, you show yourself to be speaking from ignorance. That's ok, I know its not your fault.

and I have no interest in balance. you either misunderstood, or I misrepresented that fact. I have an interest in not forcing children how to think from an early age, brainwashing them, shall we say. which is my original point. teaching children one perspective which is skewed is going to do them harm.

You quoted a bit about balance as a good arguement against religion. This means you have at least an "interest" in balance. I believe I was the first one to state that I have no interest in forcing anyone to do anything and am open to anything.

I'm starting to worry about you spir0. How were you "harmed" spir0? You seem to be speaking from experience. Tell us about how you were damaged.

Missing the point?

[bigbigbison]

Isn't the point of the game that the animals had been the victem of cruel experiments and are getting revenge? Therefore doesn't the game thus reinforce the notion that animal testing is wrong?

Re:Missing the point?

[bigbigbison]

THis reminds me of the time a year or two ago when a group of Australian security guards were upset about what they percieved as the unjust portrayal of security guards in Half-Life. Of course while you can kill the security guards in Half-Life, it is better not to since they help you and in fact the expansion pack Blue Shift has you play a security guard.
It seems some people miss the point of things entirely.

Re:Missing the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing that is the point.

The Police are probably sick of having to protect scientists from crackpot animal rights protestors. They can get very nasty in the UK.

Can't expect them to see a game that is apparently propaganda to recruit a new generation of crackpots without making a comment.

Re:Missing the point?

[DrTentacle]

Therefore doesn't the game thus reinforce the notion that animal testing is wrong?

Indeed. The complaints versed in the article were from two points of view - That this game makes light of animal suffering, and is therefore wrong, as expressed by the RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals); and that this game portrays animal experimentation in terms of it being inherently malicious, thus leading the gamer to the conclusion that animal experimentation is cruel and unneccesary and detracts support from such experiments, as put forward by Ian Gibson MP, also a doctor and a member of SIMR (Seriously Ill for Medial Research). Seems like everyone is a critic.

I Guess

[Herkum01]

That it would be better if they never find out about this web site!

Ah, sound the hypocracy alarm...

[bersl2]

So depicting a hamster being shot out of a cannon is not acceptable, but actually shooting a fox in cold blood after chasing it around or digging it out with dogs, and then glorifying the whole process to the point of gloating is? Granted, many Britons are fighting the practice, so they aren't all hypocrites.

I wouldn't mind knowing these MPs' stances on the issue.

This IS a serious matter

[cgenman]

Who do you think you are, to say that the suffering of another creature is to be made light of? All members of the kingdom of living creatures deserve our respect, including monkeys, mushrooms, and turtles. Turtles suffer when kicked out of their shells, and they suffer even more when those shells are thrown back at them. Is this the message we want to send to our children? That sending turtles careening off of destructible bricks is a viable form of entertainment?

Re:This IS a serious matter

[Kevin Burtch]

Y'know, when I first read this I actually thought you were serious?

Thanks for a good laugh - I needed that!

Wow, thats horrible

[Kanasta]

But shooting and killing people in games is still OK right?

To all International Slashdotters

[Anonymous Coward]

In the future, please refrain from using the Acronym MP and Police in the same story context.

While a quick Google search would alleviate any misunderstandings, its generally assumed in america that MP stands for Military Police.

Member of Parliment is not exactly common knowledge around here, even amoung the more educated.

Animal Testing

[TurnerK12]

From all the real life animal testing going on, we're going to one day have giant mutated rats running lose on the streets. So, don't leave home without cheese, unless you want to be trampled.
---
http://spaceruckus.web1000.com
These guys are putting together a free 3D action/adventure game.

Oh... the HORROR

[leadfoot2004]

If the animal activists are so concerned about animal cruelty in video games, maybe they should take a look at this game as well: Hit_the_Penguin

Re:Oh... the HORROR

[robnauta]

You missed the point. They are not complaining about animal cruelty, but that the game depicts researchers as cruel animal torturers who torture animals for fun. The extreme left animal rights terrorists have gotten out of control, even if you work as a secretary or cleaner for a company that is only remotely connected to another company, you risk getting your house molotoved or your car destroyed while you are away, and the police won't do anything about it, since for some strange reason these terrorists have a 'good guy' image despite their violent terrorism.

Pavlov anyone?

[SaXisT4LiF]

Actually some of the most important psychological experiments in animal behavior would be considered unethical by today's standards. Pavlov's discovery of the classical conditioning process was made possible by surgically removing the skin from dogs throats and replacing it with clear plastic so he could tell when the dogs were salivating.

Re:Pavlov anyone?

[zuzulo]

More accurately, he implanted a duct that bypassed normal salivary channels and output generated saliva into a graduated cylinder. That way he could not only tell if they were salivating, but how much, and even more importantly, measure the amount of saliva generated.

More topically, the thing most folks seem to be missing here is that the representatives dont like the extent to which the game is *against* animal testing. I guess the UK has enough trouble with foaming at the mouth animal rights terror^H^H^H^H^H^Hactivists that it does not want to encourage the next generation.

My feeling is that in the interest of fairness we ought to promote games which involve human vivisection of animals *and* animal vivisection of humans. I like to see issues from both sides, you see ... and as a side benefit, you would get to play with surgical implements. whooo! shiny!

On what planet...

[Tetrad_of_doom]

is shooting a hamster out of a cannon taken seriously?

Re:On what planet...

[Anonymous Coward]

The planet of the Cat-people. It's an ancient ceremony with major religious significance there.

Did they complain before?

[Guppy06]

"including one experiment in which a hamster is fired from a cannon."

"Send all complaints to Outpost.com."

Did they complain about that particular television commercial that also fired hampsters out of a cannon?

Complexity

[Anonymous Coward]

"Both camps exhibit one fundamental deviation from reason. The only real evidence that anyone has for the existence of suffering is their own personal experience. These two camps take this sample size of one and extrapolate their findings to the benefit of their entire species and to the exclusion of all others. This is clearly a bigotted, unscientific and illogical position."

What about the exclusion of rocks? Humans are solid objects, rocks are solid objects... if one suffers, then do not both probably suffer?

A man shouts... two men fight... four men rumble... but it takes perhaps a dozen or more to riot. A certain level of complexity is sometimes necessary for a phenomenon to exist.

I don't say animals don't suffer... I just say that you need a better reason to believe they do than just "we believe other humans suffer without direct experience of their suffering, so we should believe animals suffer without direct experience."

I don't build rocket ships, I don't write best-sellers, and I don't golf... I've never even seen a person do these things, directly. I believe other people do them because the people tell me. Is it wrong to believe that rodents do not do any of these things, simply because the rodents don't tell me about doing them? Have never told anyone I've ever heard of about doing them?

Re:Complexity

[sydb]

Well, quite; I would think the existence of a nervous system is a prerequisite to feeling anything.

When it comes to relative complexity, though, most non-human animals are pretty much on a par, don't you think? I can see grey areas when it comes to single-celled organisms and such like, but then, we don't perform lab testing on single-celled organisms and extrapolate our findings to ourselves!

The worm turns

[AllenChristopher]

The real problem here is that the game lampoons science that neither the game's authors nor the game's users understand well enough to fairly and impartially evaluate. To "bring it home" to Slashdot, it would be as if a game depicted a computer running linux as a slow and unfriendly old VAX/VMS machine with a command prompt reading "$ Hey let's pirate some songs, write a few viruses and h4x0r a bank's network! >"

You have a reasonable point, but to be fair to the authors of the game, the point isn't that the science is wrong... the point is that it's funny to imagine the helpless animals so many people cry about suddenly turning the tables. Indeed, it's the classic "the worm turns" story, so I'll make that the subject of this post. Underdogs, poor huddling little creatures, now ironically freed due to the powers given to them by the very research that was such hell.

It doesn't have to have anything to do with the science, and if anything, it cuts against the animal-rights protestors just as hard... if these animals were really free to do what they wanted, they'd exact a horrible, and very human, revenge. You wouldn't just watch them hop out into the field and make love in the clover.

Game, Set, and Match

[Anonymous Coward]

Come now Mike Hawk, beating up on the village idiot hardly warrants the chest pounding exuberance you seem intent on displaying here. I am pretty sure that buttered toast could beat this guy in an open debate. Anyone who leads an argument with "I want to shit down your throat" is hardly worth the time don't you think?