The Guardian has a complete fucking moron on its payroll

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What cuntard is responsible for this fucking travesty?

Seriously? How fucking cuntishly thick and demented do you have to be even consider promoting lunacy like that to the front page of your website.

Oviously, I left a comment in response:

"the sooner we`ll stop strapping them to boards and dissecting them alive for no good reason"

Why has this comment been selected for promotion to the front page of the website? It is moronic. No one except psychopaths strap animals to boards and dissect them alive for no good reason. Personally, whenever I dissect a living organism I have very, very good reasons for doing so because I am a scientist and the research I conduct provides vital information to help us manage our environment sustainably and effectively. Furthermore, I work exclusively with lower animals such as worms and molluscs, which lack the sophisticated neural system to even experience pain and suffering. This is why experiments conducted upon such organisms are not covered by Home Office regulations. If I were to work on higher animals such as fish, rodents or even primates then I still would never find myself strapping them to boards and dissecting them alive because this is illegal and unethical and no one does this any more!

Shame on the Guardian for drawing attention to this stupid comment. What are you going to do for an encore- highlight the words of some lunatic calling for ginger people to be burnt as witches?

Let's see if it gets deleted.

Addition some 3 hours later:

Excellent! Some pig-ignorant fucktard has already posted an inflamatory response. I returned fire:

@Britcominghome

Allow me to paraphrase your response:

"Yeah, science is dumb cos I dunt unnerstand it."

Still happy enough for it to provide you with the computer or phone you've posted this from, hey. And the food production system that keeps you alive, the medicines that cure your many diseases, the engineering allowing you to stay dry, warm and secure.

In response, I believe worms don't experience pain and suffering because I stand on the shoulders of scientific giants who have accumulated evidence to suggest that they can't. The idea that an animal as simple as a worm or lower molluscs (I specifically exclude cephalopods because of their sophistication) can experience any mental stimuli in a manner similar to mammals is laughable to anyone with even the most basic appreciation of comparative anatomy. I suggest you read this Wikipedia article. There are ample referenes at the end to peer-reviewed papers. Pay particular attention to the Comparative anatomy and evolution section.

I hope your arrogance in insulting and contradicting me is underlain by an advanced understanding of the subject that you will be willing to share with me here. I would be most grateful if you could provide a single piece of evidence which suggests that lower animals can feel pain because, as a scientist, I am anxious to learn and keen to establish the truth in an objective and well-evidenced fashion.

If I sound uptight and condescending, its because I am.

Addition another 10 minutes later:

Okay, after re-reading his comment I realised I hadn't been nearly harsh enough with this guy. So here's the follow-up:

Sorry, I tried to refrain from challenging this idiocy but I'm so profoundly irritated by @Britcominghome's comment that I'm just going to go nuts.
You wrote:

"That a living entity doesn't 'experience pain and suffering' is simply a moronic thing to say."

So, according to you, an amoeba can experience pain and suffering, yes?
How about a cyanobacterium?
How about the moss growing out on the deck?
The tapeworm burrowing its way through you intestines and the bacteria they contain?

You're an idiot. Mainly for that comment, but also for the "blacks" one too.

the sky-pixie made me!

My first paragraph on this CiF thread sums up my position succinctly:

"This article is revisionist crap. Evolution needs no rehashing to make it acceptable to rednecks. Rednecks need educating to help them understand the profound implications of evolution. This is an educational and sociological problem, not a scientific one."

I chose to follow this up with a succession of appropriate quotes from my collection.

Tax Justice Network

I heard about these guys from a Guardian article. I like the cut of their jib.

this is really fucking scary

The Guardian's article declaring that open warfare could erupt imminently is an appalling piece of journalism. Firstly it does not condemn the open aggression on the part of the US. It does not question any of the US's groundless excuses for their aggression and it simply comments that Gordon Brown will be faced with some sort of dilemma as to with whom to side in any ensuing confrontation- the answer to which should be obvious to anyone with the slightest trace of humanity. But the most alarming piece is the open statement by some ex-CIA source that the decision to go to war has already been taken without any evidence being presented to support such a threat to the already badly destabilised global security situation.

Basically, this is an open declaration of the of editorial team's indifference to another war of aggression by the US.

More on the US escalation.
More.
More.
Possible consequences.

The Guardian gets busted regurgitating Pentagon Propaganda

Media Lens have done a thorough takedown on this Guardian front page spread by some goon called Simon Tisdall, slating it for its uncritical regurgitation of an unnamed US official's words. I would like to say that this is uncharacteristic of The Guardian but I really wouldn't know, not being a Professor of Journalism or anything.

Its simulaneously encouraging and alarming when shit like this makes its way into my world as at one stroke I am greatly pleased to see someone monitoring the abuse of the press whilst at the same time being terrified that media outlets that I regularly read might be functioning as outlets of evill. I didn't encounter this article personally but if I did I can assure you that I would have been one of the many people who wrote to the Guardian Editor in horror at this sort of uncritical reporting making its way onto the front page of this paper.

This comment from a CiF thread was particularly frank:

"What the original article conspicuously avoids, and what this miserable excuse for a justification also ignores, is that there is without any doubt a propaganda campaign from the United States regime to justify a military attack on Iran, an attack which the US has repeatedly threatened despite its overt criminality. In that context, a journalist who willingly fires the propaganda missiles of the aggressive US regime is worse than just servile, they will actually share some of the guilt of the crime if the aggression against Iran does eventuate."