Hans Ruesch, 1913 - 2007
-
The g/f and I spent half an hour Saturday night catching mosquitos in a jar and putting them outdoors before going to bed... ..didn't notice any fur on them.
Fred_Smith wrote:
The g/f and I spent half an hour Saturday night catching mosquitos in a jar
:omg: Do you strain your drinking water as well? Or is that too dangerous for the rotifers?
-
Laugh all you like, but you can take back your implied dig at hypocrisy, please. But even if I did limit myself to the cute furry animals, somewhat hypocrtitical as that may be, it would not invalidate the whole argument. I am not intersted in arguing the ethics or morality of this subject, because it's somewhat like arguing about God with the Jesus squad, but rather the science of it. We are told that experimenting on animals is a valid path to understanding and curing human disease. Just on it's own, such a simple statemnt as that should strike you as nonsensical, without even going any further. Sheep can consume arsenic by the bucket-load, a teaspoon will kill us - as will 2 grams of scopolamin, a drug which is harmless to dogs and cats (except in huge doses.) A single Amanita phalloides mushrrom can wipe out an entire human family, but is a health food for rabbits (a favourite lab animal.) Morphine, a favourite human anasthetic, causes mania in cats and mice, those other favourite lab animals. Almonds can kill foxes, parsely is poisenous to parrots, and penicillin - that saviour of millions - is posinous to guinea-pigs (yet another much abused lab animal.) This list can be extended almost indefinitely. How is inducing a cancer in a rat in a laboratory in any way scientifically comparable to a cancer that grows due to environmental and/or dietry and/or genetic factors in man? It is a nonsense.
Did you give some of your blood to mosquitos before expelling them or did you condemn them to starve in the wildness?
Fred_Smith wrote:
it would not invalidate the whole argument.
Or course it would. This is anthropomorphism, and this is so close from a psychological condition.
Fred_Smith wrote:
How is inducing a cancer in a rat in a laboratory in any way scientifically comparable to a cancer that grows due to environmental and/or dietry and/or genetic factors in man? It is a nonsense.
As using mice to produce human ears[^]...
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Fred, it sure doesn't sound like a scientific argument when you use terms like: (...)
That was me, not Hans Ruesch. Anyway, rather than quote reams back at you, I'll just say this (becasue HR can do it better than me): you've read a lot of one side of the argument - now try reading the other. And bear in mind that everything you've read has come from sources funded by the very people who stand to benefit from such research. Follow the money trail - that always throws a new light on things. Fred
Fred_Smith wrote:
And bear in mind that everything you've read has come from sources funded by the very people who stand to benefit from such research.
In other words, are you saying that using animals in medical research is profitable? Surely, that means the research is useful for coming up with medical solutions.
Cheers Tom Philosophy: The art of never getting beyond the concept of life.
Religion: Morality taking credit for the work of luck.
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." - Marcus Aurelius -
Fred_Smith wrote:
The g/f and I spent half an hour Saturday night catching mosquitos in a jar
:omg: Do you strain your drinking water as well? Or is that too dangerous for the rotifers?
You drink water? You'll be telling me you bath in Whisky next... :-D
-
Did you give some of your blood to mosquitos before expelling them or did you condemn them to starve in the wildness?
Fred_Smith wrote:
it would not invalidate the whole argument.
Or course it would. This is anthropomorphism, and this is so close from a psychological condition.
Fred_Smith wrote:
How is inducing a cancer in a rat in a laboratory in any way scientifically comparable to a cancer that grows due to environmental and/or dietry and/or genetic factors in man? It is a nonsense.
As using mice to produce human ears[^]...
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?
K(arl) wrote:
This is anthropomorphism
No Karl, it is precicely NOT this, if you've read anything I've said in this thread. If anything, it is the vivisectors who could be accused of anthropomorphism - they are the ones who think animal and human characteristics / biology / physiology can be equated. I am arguong just the opposite.
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
The g/f and I spent half an hour Saturday night catching mosquitos in a jar
:omg: Do you strain your drinking water as well? Or is that too dangerous for the rotifers?
Bah, give him a break. He is doing less harm to other living organisms. What is wrong with that?
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
And bear in mind that everything you've read has come from sources funded by the very people who stand to benefit from such research.
In other words, are you saying that using animals in medical research is profitable? Surely, that means the research is useful for coming up with medical solutions.
Cheers Tom Philosophy: The art of never getting beyond the concept of life.
Religion: Morality taking credit for the work of luck.
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." - Marcus AureliusTClarke wrote:
Surely, that means the research is useful for coming up with medical solutions.
If only... all it means is that the well of human gullibility is bottomless, as they feed on our depserate desire to find cures for illnesses, and even death itself... people will do anything, believe anything, sacrifice anything, if a man in white coat stands up and promises them he will find a cure for some dread disease... They might do better to wonder wbout where such diseases come from. As far back as 1961 (and you can believe it's even worse now) the following was written: "When will [people] realise that there ar too many drugs? No fewer than 150,000 preparations are now in use. About 15,000 new mixes and dosages hit the market each year, while about 12,000 die off. We simply don't have enough diseases to go round! At the moment the most helpful contribution is the new drug is to counteract the untoward effects of other new drugs." (Dr Modell, Cornell University, writing in Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics) From personal experience, I remember when my father was dyting of cancer, adn was on about a dozen wdifferent pills each day - over half of which were given to counteract the side effects of others. He still died, of course.
-
Hans Ruesch, the father of the genuine scientific anti-vivisection movement, died on Monday 27th August 2007, aged 94. Author of the books Slaughter of the Innocent, and its follow-up The Naked Empress, Hans was the scourge of both the vivisection industry, and the phoney, infiltrator-led, so-called "anti-vivisection" movement whose continued purpose is to mount pretend anti-vivisection campaigns deliberately designed to go nowhere, whilst relieving sincere, but often naive animal rights people of their money. He will be sadly missed by those who genuinely care about the torture of *millions upon millions* (sic) of animals, the bad science and the bad medicine that vivisection is responsible for. For those that cling to the false belief that their or their children's lives might one day be dependent upon this abhorrent practice, or who are interested in reading a well-researched, well-written, fully annotated debunking of the vivisection myth, I cannot recomment highly enough his seminal work "Slaugter of the Innocent". This is not the ranbling rantings of an emotionally scarred immature idealist, as many people see those in the animal rights movement, but an intelligent scientific argument by a man who spent years researching his subject. What he reveals in his books will make your hair stand on end - and I am not just referring to the almost unbelievable abuse that goes on in vivisection laboratories worldwide, but also the sheer scale of the bad science involved, all to feed the monetary greed of the pharmaceutical companies that sponsor it, and to satisfy the depserate need for reassurance that the general public (that's you...) demands from the medical industry; that it will cure you of your ailments. Have your eyes opened, and read this book. Slaughter of the Inocent, on Amazom.com[^] Fred
Lobster is best when boiled alive.
-
I will care about animal rights when all of my human fellows will be able to exert their inalienable ones. I've got no moral problem to sacrifice one thousand dogs if it can save one human being. Our world is going crazy: when an animal is found there are refuges to take care of it, but men can continue to die each winter lying on our pavements.
Change of fashion is the tax levied by the industry of the poor on the vanity of the rich Fold with us! ¤ flickr
K(arl) wrote:
inalienable
What rights are inherent Karl?
K(arl) wrote:
animal rights
Is more about freeing you from being a victimiser, than freeing the animal from being a victim.
K(arl) wrote:
I've got no moral problem to sacrifice one thousand dogs if it can save one human being.
I have. A lot of people are scum. A lot of people get themselves into a situation through choice. An animal IS an innocent.
K(arl) wrote:
but men can continue to die each winter lying on our pavements.
Normally because they wont go to a refuge.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
Lobster is best when boiled alive.
Actually, all crustaceans tastes like shit if they're not boiled alive. At least the lobster/craw fish/crab families - not sure about shrimps. The only consolation is that they die fairly instantly.
-
K(arl) wrote:
This is anthropomorphism
No Karl, it is precicely NOT this, if you've read anything I've said in this thread. If anything, it is the vivisectors who could be accused of anthropomorphism - they are the ones who think animal and human characteristics / biology / physiology can be equated. I am arguong just the opposite.
-
I will care about animal rights when all of my human fellows will be able to exert their inalienable ones. I've got no moral problem to sacrifice one thousand dogs if it can save one human being. Our world is going crazy: when an animal is found there are refuges to take care of it, but men can continue to die each winter lying on our pavements.
Change of fashion is the tax levied by the industry of the poor on the vanity of the rich Fold with us! ¤ flickr
K(arl) wrote:
Our world is going crazy: when an animal is found there are refuges to take care of it, but men can continue to die each winter lying on our pavements.
Women die on pavements too...
-
Well said.
-
Actually, all crustaceans tastes like shit if they're not boiled alive. At least the lobster/craw fish/crab families - not sure about shrimps. The only consolation is that they die fairly instantly.
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
The only consolation is that they die fairly instantly.
My only consolation is that I can hear them scream.
-
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
The only consolation is that they die fairly instantly.
My only consolation is that I can hear them scream.
I bet you can, Doolittle Jr.
-
There are no end of charities and other organisations dedicated to human suffering in all it's guises, and that's fine and good. The fact that they haven't got a great record of stopping all human suffering is no excuse to ignore that of animals. And please, the real point of HR's book is not animal suffering, valid though that is. It is also about the bad science that is vivisection. There is good eveidence to suggest, if you read the book, that vivisection has done more to hinder medical science than advance it, through false and misleading results.
Fred_Smith wrote:
they haven't got a great record of stopping all human suffering is no excuse to ignore that of animals
Human suffering is CAUSED by humans. We are almost incapable of solving mans problems. We are too close to the problem to solve it. With animals though we can easially be compassionate but distanced from their nature. Makes it easy, a lot easier then to care for people.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
K(arl) wrote:
inalienable
What rights are inherent Karl?
K(arl) wrote:
animal rights
Is more about freeing you from being a victimiser, than freeing the animal from being a victim.
K(arl) wrote:
I've got no moral problem to sacrifice one thousand dogs if it can save one human being.
I have. A lot of people are scum. A lot of people get themselves into a situation through choice. An animal IS an innocent.
K(arl) wrote:
but men can continue to die each winter lying on our pavements.
Normally because they wont go to a refuge.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
fat_boy wrote:
What rights are inherent Karl?
Universal Declaration of Human Rights[^]
fat_boy wrote:
Is more about freeing you from being a victimiser
The crime lies in your eyes, not mine.
fat_boy wrote:
I have. A lot of people are scum. A lot of people get themselves into a situation through choice. An animal IS an innocent.
And there we go with the psychological condition...
Change of fashion is the tax levied by the industry of the poor on the vanity of the rich Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
K(arl) wrote:
Our world is going crazy: when an animal is found there are refuges to take care of it, but men can continue to die each winter lying on our pavements.
Women die on pavements too...
True. I use 'men' as 'human beings' - it's a gallicism, not a display of misogyny - this time :)
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
Bah, give him a break. He is doing less harm to other living organisms. What is wrong with that?
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
What is wrong with that?
A concern for mosquitoes and protozoa as 'beings' is not only an absurd but also a fundamentally anti human philosophy. Animals are a means to an end - and the end is Man. An individual exhibiting such a level of anthropomorphism is an amusing oddity, the problem is that this idiocy is spreading to policy.
-
fat_boy wrote:
What rights are inherent Karl?
Universal Declaration of Human Rights[^]
fat_boy wrote:
Is more about freeing you from being a victimiser
The crime lies in your eyes, not mine.
fat_boy wrote:
I have. A lot of people are scum. A lot of people get themselves into a situation through choice. An animal IS an innocent.
And there we go with the psychological condition...
Change of fashion is the tax levied by the industry of the poor on the vanity of the rich Fold with us! ¤ flickr
K(arl) wrote:
What rights are inherent Karl? Universal Declaration of Human Rights[^]
I was expecting a little thought from you rather than a reguritation of someone leses, but even the UDHR is a fantasy: 1) ...people. They are endowed with reason and conscience' Yeah, sure, I see lots of evidence of that all around me. And so it goes on. Tell me Karl, really, what rights do we have?
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
