Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
PlayStation (Games) Entertainment Games

Whiplash Causes UK Controversy On Animal Testing 87

Posted by simoniker from the lawks-a-lordy dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Whiplash Causes UK Controversy On Animal Testing More

Whiplash Causes UK Controversy On Animal Testing

Comments Filter:

  • Let's all say it together.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kevin Burtch ( 13372 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @05:44PM (#8309514)

    "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.
    • 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?

    • This IS a serious matter (Score:5, Funny)

      by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @07:40PM (#8310877) Homepage
      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?

  • um. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by kabocox ( 199019 )
    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
  • i believe this is a new low for censorship. call PETA!

  • Distorted view (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @05:46PM (#8309541)
    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..

    • Reality (Score:5, Informative)

      by EnglishTim ( 9662 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @06:26PM (#8310066)
      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 (Score:5, Interesting)

        by sydb ( 176695 ) <michael@NospAm.wd21.co.uk> on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @08:50PM (#8311461)
        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 (Score:1, Insightful)

          by 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.

          • 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 (Score:3, Interesting)

          by NonSequor ( 230139 )
          "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.
          • 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
            • 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.
        • 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
          • 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 w
            • 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
              • 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 poin
                • 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 eff
                  • 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 i

      • Re:Reality (Score:3, Interesting)

        by blincoln ( 592401 )
        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 visu

    • Re:Distorted view (Score:4, Insightful)

      by orthogonal ( 588627 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @08:03PM (#8311075) Journal
      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.
      • 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 tha

  • Two different arguments (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pluvius ( 734915 ) <pluvius3@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @05:58PM (#8309694) Journal
    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 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by lake2112 ( 748837 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @06:01PM (#8309732)
    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 (Score:2, Interesting)

      by 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.
      • 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 tryin

  • Let's show kids animal experiments vids instead (Score:4, Interesting)

    by lightspawn ( 155347 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @06:16PM (#8309936) Homepage
    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 (Score:4, Insightful)

      by August_zero ( 654282 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @07:32PM (#8310808)
      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

  • What's wrong with the world today???? (Score:3, Funny)

    by foooo ( 634898 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @06:26PM (#8310062) Journal
    If you can't fire rodents out of cannons what CAN you do???

  • U can't be serious (Score:4, Funny)

    by superpulpsicle ( 533373 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @06:28PM (#8310087)
    These people have obviously never seen games like Final Fantasy where you'll probably kill a thousand wolves just to gain one level.
    • 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? (Score:4, Funny)

    by DamnRogue ( 731140 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @06:28PM (#8310090)
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DrSkwid ( 118965 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @06:29PM (#8310094) Journal

    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 [angelfire.com] 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

    • 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 (Score:4, Funny)

      by kyz ( 225372 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:25PM (#8311771) Homepage
      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 [animalrights.net]?

      "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.

      • > 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
        • 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 emergenc

  • Bah! "Stop! For The Children!" (Score:3, Informative)

    by DLWormwood ( 154934 ) <wormwood@me.PARIScom minus city> on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @06:42PM (#8310251) Homepage
    I've already ranted [slashdot.org] once about equating video games with kids stuff, thanks to Nintendo [slashdot.org]...

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

  • So, then (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @06:43PM (#8310273)

    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 (Score:1, Funny)

      by 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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by spir0 ( 319821 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @06:48PM (#8310335) Homepage Journal
    "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.

    • 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.
      • 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 bala

  • Missing the point? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bigbigbison ( 104532 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @07:03PM (#8310510) Homepage
    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? (Score:4, Funny)

      by bigbigbison ( 104532 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @07:54PM (#8310991) Homepage
      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.

    • 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 [rspca.org.uk] (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 de

  • I Guess (Score:4, Funny)

    by Herkum01 ( 592704 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @07:10PM (#8310584)
    That it would be better if they never find out about this web site! [happytreefriends.com]

  • Ah, sound the hypocracy alarm... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bersl2 ( 689221 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @07:35PM (#8310835) Journal
    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.

  • Wow, thats horrible (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kanasta ( 70274 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @07:43PM (#8310897)
    But shooting and killing people in games is still OK right?
  • 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 [web1000.com]
    These guys are putting together a free 3D action/adventure game.
  • 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 [coolegames.com]
    • 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 h
  • 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.
    • 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
  • is shooting a hamster out of a cannon taken seriously?
  • "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?

Slashdot Top Deals

"May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe

Close