Hans Ruesch, 1913 - 2007
-
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
-
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
fat_boy wrote:
I was expecting a little thought from you rather than a reguritation of someone leses, but even the UDHR is a fantasy
fat_boy wrote:
And so it goes on. Tell me Karl, really, what rights do we have?
Karl is a Marxist, so his concepts of rights are inherently derived from the state... i.e., they're whatever his state tells them they are. It's funny what a cheap (but wordier!) bite off of the Bill of Rights the UDHR is.
-
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
-
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.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
the problem is that this idiocy is spreading to policy.
No, I don't think so. Policy is defined by the masses (although through a ruling elite). It will take a lot before such policies are established. I fear religious people and their wet policy dreams far more than any mosquito lover...
-
fat_boy wrote:
I was expecting a little thought from you rather than a reguritation of someone leses, but even the UDHR is a fantasy
fat_boy wrote:
And so it goes on. Tell me Karl, really, what rights do we have?
Karl is a Marxist, so his concepts of rights are inherently derived from the state... i.e., they're whatever his state tells them they are. It's funny what a cheap (but wordier!) bite off of the Bill of Rights the UDHR is.
In this respect you could be right. And, I you would probably agree with me that the only 'unalienable rights' we have are those we are prepared to fight for. Its a big fist and a big arm that gives a person rights. Take that away and he has nothing.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
fat_boy wrote:
UDHR is a fantasy
No, it's a concept.
Jouir et faire jouir sans faire de mal ni à toi ni à personne, voilà je crois le fondement de toute morale Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
TClarke 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.
Sorry to hear about your father. While I agree that people's desperation when they are ill makes them an easy target. This is especially visible in unchecked markets such as alternative medicine. The medical industry is a continually evolving system with very strict rules and monitoring, I used to work for what was Smithkline Beecham and you have to see an FDA audit to believe it. Any mishandling of these drugs is not done by the pharmaceutical companies. As for the number of drugs on the market, it costs around £300,000,000 to bring a drug to market. The companies have to be pretty sure there will be a market for it, that is, it works before they go ahead and put it through all the testing, so there's nothing superfluous that enters the market. What would be an interesting statistic is how many drugs don't make it to market because of a flaw found from testing on animals. PS Cancer is a very tricky disease to treat. Basically the drugs are just poisons that we are slightly less susceptible to than cancer cells are. The other drugs are to try to protect certain organs from failing.
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 -
From my POV, Anthropomorphism lies in considering animals as entities having rights in our human society.
Change of fashion is the tax levied by the industry of the poor on the vanity of the rich Fold with us! ¤ flickr
Not really.. Anthropomorphism is attributing human qualities / charactreristics ( / personality, even) to non-human beings... it doesn't ususally mean or include "rights in society" though I suppose it can...
-
Bollocks, that was a load of crap.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
Elucidate.
-
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.
I am not anti-human nor am I anthropomorphic in my attitude towards animals. I have said nothing that should make you think otherwise, so please stop jumping to preconceived ideas about me.
-
I am not anti-human nor am I anthropomorphic in my attitude towards animals. I have said nothing that should make you think otherwise, so please stop jumping to preconceived ideas about me.
Fred_Smith wrote:
I am not anti-human
I think the fact that you oppose the necessary use of animals for medical research demonstrates that you are.
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
I am not anti-human
I think the fact that you oppose the necessary use of animals for medical research demonstrates that you are.
I don't believe it is necesary. More than that, I believe it hinders rather than helps genuine biomedical research. Read the book. I am far from alone, even amongst the researchers.
-
I don't believe it is necesary. More than that, I believe it hinders rather than helps genuine biomedical research. Read the book. I am far from alone, even amongst the researchers.
Fred_Smith wrote:
I don't believe it is necesary.
Do you believe it's not necessary because you catch mosquitos in jars and set them free? I'm sure that rather odd behavior has nothing at all to do with your opinion on this matter...Right? :rolleyes:
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
I don't believe it is necesary.
Do you believe it's not necessary because you catch mosquitos in jars and set them free? I'm sure that rather odd behavior has nothing at all to do with your opinion on this matter...Right? :rolleyes:
You've lost me there. How does my catching mosquitoes and freeing them make you think there I go from there to a beloef that vivisection is unnecessary? My not wanting to kill any living creature is a personal moral choice. My argument agianst vivisection is a scientific one. You can try (and those on your side of this argument constantly do) to confuse the two, but I am quite clear about the difference. And the reason you (or the vivisectors) do this is because they know, though they won't admit it, that their scientific arguments for it are bogus.
-
You've lost me there. How does my catching mosquitoes and freeing them make you think there I go from there to a beloef that vivisection is unnecessary? My not wanting to kill any living creature is a personal moral choice. My argument agianst vivisection is a scientific one. You can try (and those on your side of this argument constantly do) to confuse the two, but I am quite clear about the difference. And the reason you (or the vivisectors) do this is because they know, though they won't admit it, that their scientific arguments for it are bogus.
Fred_Smith wrote:
How does my catching mosquitoes and freeing them make you think there I go from there to a beloef that vivisection is unnecessary?
Because that level of...oddity...indicates that possibly. Just possibly. Your opinion that such research is "unnecessary" is based more on your overzealous desire to ensure humans do not kill animals than it is on level-headedness.
Fred_Smith wrote:
My not wanting to kill any living creature is a personal moral choice. My argument agianst vivisection is a scientific one. You can try (and those on your side of this argument constantly do) to confuse the two, but I am quite clear about the difference. And the reason you (or the vivisectors) do this is because they know, though they won't admit it, that their scientific arguments for it are bogus.
Your rather silly preference not to kill animals (as though animals are immune from premature death in the wild) may be a benign curiosity to those around, but your opinion that research considered valuable by those who conduct it is anything but benign. I also highly doubt that your equally zealous opinion on vivisection is "a scientific one"...Given the fact that you catch mosquitos in jars.
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
How does my catching mosquitoes and freeing them make you think there I go from there to a beloef that vivisection is unnecessary?
Because that level of...oddity...indicates that possibly. Just possibly. Your opinion that such research is "unnecessary" is based more on your overzealous desire to ensure humans do not kill animals than it is on level-headedness.
Fred_Smith wrote:
My not wanting to kill any living creature is a personal moral choice. My argument agianst vivisection is a scientific one. You can try (and those on your side of this argument constantly do) to confuse the two, but I am quite clear about the difference. And the reason you (or the vivisectors) do this is because they know, though they won't admit it, that their scientific arguments for it are bogus.
Your rather silly preference not to kill animals (as though animals are immune from premature death in the wild) may be a benign curiosity to those around, but your opinion that research considered valuable by those who conduct it is anything but benign. I also highly doubt that your equally zealous opinion on vivisection is "a scientific one"...Given the fact that you catch mosquitos in jars.
Oh for goodnes sakes - people can die prematurely too, that doesn't gove anyone the rght to murder them does it? But you are still doing it, despite what I just said in my previous post: trying to confuse my morality with my science. I know the two are separate and if all you can do is try to confuse the two in order to make your point then all I can conclude is that you know you can't win the scientific argument and so have to resort to such diversionary tactics. Ther IS a good scientific case aginst vivisection. I simply can't post a whole treatise here about it (though I have made a few points elsewhere here)- it takes a book to do it justice, and such a book has been written. I urge you, again, to read it.