Animal Liberation Front.
Facts: Members have claimed that they would just as soon save a dog rather than a human baby if they were more "emotionally" attached to it and that no ethical or moral principles would have any validity in the situation or its outcome.
Would rather see every single human being die form disease than so much as a single dog killed for biomedical research.
Claim that computer science alone can lead to human development of vaccination technologies, while no existing evidence supports this claim.
Claim that no testing on animals could ever yield useful results to humans, and in doing so ignore the past one hundred years of medicinal development.
Claim that humans are inherently "moral" animals and have an "ethical" duty to consider the "rights" of animals. Naive at best, they ignore that the concepts of "morality," "ethics," and "rights" are merely inventions of the human mind and do not exist beyond the man-made implications of actions of human beings that only other humans "perceive."
"Right" and "wrong" are psychological fabrications of the human brain and are in no way bound in the world of natural law. "Morality" only exists as far as there is a will of human beings to act upon it. The idea that humans "must" abide by a moral principle that ensures the "rights" of animals is as much a falsehood as the idea that whites are superior to blacks.
A "morality" that says that animal experimentation and consumption is "justifiable" is no more or less a creation of the human mind than any "morality" that says that such activities and "wrong." As sure as the concept of "language" itself, these are ideas that we create in our animal brains whose only "inherent" properties are that fact that they are absolutely meaningless outside of human perception.
Medical testing on animals has given us approximately 90% of current vaccinations used today.
Any of ALF's ideological subscribers that believe in animal "rights" should by their own definition never, ever seek out influenza or pneumonia vaccines or ever use diabetes medicines - which, curiously, the vice president of PETA does.
"Ethics" and "morality" only exist because the past ten thousand years of evolution have given humanity the ability to invent psychological concepts and apply them to the world around them. If the human physiology lead to a brain that was less "intelligent" than it currently is, then no such arguments of "right" or "wrong" would even exist.
Just so as "morality" and "ethics" and mere human inventions, so are the notions of "freedom," "prejudice," "bias," "racism," "sexism," and "equality."
Animals do not have inherent natural "rights" because nothing does - the idea of "rights" is a human psychological device that exists solely inside of the realm of human perception and action, nothing else.
Again, take a few thousand years of evolution away from the human anatomy, and none of these notions would ever have come to exist - and yes, we'd still be eating animals and wearing their furs.