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.

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..

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

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.

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.

Consistency?

[DamnRogue]

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

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

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".

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.

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?

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?