[FRIAM] by any means necessary

[glen]

Yeah, you can see the bad faith in Neuralink's 1st paragraph: "It is important to note that these accusations come from people who oppose any use of animals in research. Currently, all novel medical devices and treatments must be tested in animals before they can be ethically trialed in humans."

PCRM *is* against any use of animals in research, as am I. But we *all* know that animals must be used in (some) research, including PCRM. So, even though I'm *against* any use of animals in research, my opposition to it amounts to condoning it when it's necessary and, if necessary, it be done openly and humanely.

Their bad faith is similar to the abortion strawman. Even Renee' has said to me that she's known someone who "used abortion as birth control". It's ridiculous. If you've had an abortion, you know that it's not a trivial thing, medically or emotionally. Those who objectify and *other* people like PETA (or PCRM) and trivialize their concerns are not worth listening to. Ignore Neuralink's silly protestations. Pay attention to their actions. Same with politicians. Pay more attention to their votes and campaign financing, less to the rhetoric they push to their tribe.

My guess is there are many effective and well-intentioned people in Neuralink and that this exposure, shrill, annoying, and backseating as it may be, will help them do a better job. But we won't know that unless/until they allow their critics some backseating access.

On 2/15/22 10:09, Steve Smith wrote:
> Where are the advocacy groups to write *only* steelmen rather than being either corporate/industry lackeys and/or hyper-aggressive activists reframing everything as a tragedy? My sympathies are with the "little guy", the individuals and groups with no voice or power of their own, but too often those who speak up for them get a little shrill and inject yet other agendas than the ones I believe actually represent the real positions and issues of those they claim to represent.   It seems to be a structural failing in the very idea of representative government/advocacy?   I'm sure I may be being overly critical/cynical here but it feels very difficult for me to sort out what is *really* going on when a widespread or structural bias or harm is identified... it isn't *just* noise/signal ratios, it is multiple competing caricatured? models.
> 
> I heard a brief clip of an interview with AOC who said she was considering leaving Government and putting her energy/perspective into Direct Action or at least Activism...
> 
> On 2/15/22 11:02 AM, glen wrote:
>> I suppose I could go find paid "news" articles from Big Tobacco or the dairy or meat industry to argue nearly identical points ... or maybe we could ask BP or Exxon to tell us how environmentally responsible they are. But why waste my time digesting corporate propaganda? If they invite some neutral parties to keep an eye on their practices, that might be worth paying attention to.
>>
>> On 2/15/22 09:52, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>>> https://neuralink.com/blog/animal-welfare/


-- 
glen
When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.