Animals in rhetoric

Introduction

Some years ago I published an article in Between the Species entitled "The Otherness of Animals" (Fall 1988). In this article urged that we should ask ourselves fundamental questions of how we, the defenders of animals, really conceived to avoid contributing to the same attitudes that seek to change. A question to ask concerns our tendency to depreciate ourselves, animals, and our goals when we talk to the press and the public. Many times we "apologize" for animals and what they feel about them. In Between the Species, I argued, "As we are anxious not to alienate anyone in our cause, and to live in a world that sees the other animals so different that we doubt ourselves sometimes, and tend to present to the Court apologizing for them, decorating them to make them look more human, more capable, more ladies and gentlemen, able to dominate the Ameslan (ASL) in six languages." (Bitzer, 399-408)

Discussion

Experiments on animals should be replaced every whenever possible, to minimize the numbers and suffering. In reality, there is nothing new - it is already said that the current law. Worse, the new law would the use of animals even when there is an effective alternative if substitution is not in the list of legislation European. According to EU statistics, this would represent approximately 78% of all experiments (including research fundamental). - The use of primates will be severely restricted. It false Although there are restrictions on the use of large monkeys, researchers can use even for other primate Human benign disease, and basic research without no special protection. - Only small primates bred in captivity or obtained in maintained colonies can be used.

This is false; it is purely a desire for long-term needs related to supply of researchers. - The statement that the new directive is a step towards the ultimate goal of total replacement animal testing when possible is scientifically false. The Council's position does no mechanism to achieve this goal. Ministers dismissed the use of common objectives and assessments to reflect public opinion and the evolution of science. Despite the rhetoric, the truth is that animals continue to be experiments in large numbers, for reasons that have nothing to do with finding cures for diseases - such as safety testing of non-essential goods and driven research by curiosity (Allen, 87-108).

We apologize in many ways. On more than one occasion, animal advocates have told me that the public is never going to be interested in the chickens; the only way to get people to stop eating chickens is focusing on things like health and the environment. However, take this defeatist view is to the prophecy. If we who speak for the animals decided in advance that no one really interested in them, will send that message to the public; if we insist that others will never be interested in the poultry project the feeling, "I do not think you can worry too much about chickens."

This negative attitude about chickens embodied ...