Hans Ruesch, 1913 - 2007
-
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.
-
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.
Fred_Smith wrote:
Oh for goodnes sakes - people can die prematurely too, that doesn't gove anyone the rght to murder them does it?
Of course not...Because they're "people". Equating people to animals on a moral level is...odd.
Fred_Smith wrote:
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.
Yes, well...I can't help but postulate that since both your views are rather extreme and both cross the same boundary that your "morality" is indeed confused with your "science". My point isn't based on my confusion of the two, but rather your confusion of the two is my point.
Fred_Smith wrote:
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.
Two questions: 1. From which biological science is your PhD? 2. Can you point me to some papers you've published in respected journals on the fruitlessness of vivisection? I want to expand my horizons!
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
Oh for goodnes sakes - people can die prematurely too, that doesn't gove anyone the rght to murder them does it?
Of course not...Because they're "people". Equating people to animals on a moral level is...odd.
Fred_Smith wrote:
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.
Yes, well...I can't help but postulate that since both your views are rather extreme and both cross the same boundary that your "morality" is indeed confused with your "science". My point isn't based on my confusion of the two, but rather your confusion of the two is my point.
Fred_Smith wrote:
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.
Two questions: 1. From which biological science is your PhD? 2. Can you point me to some papers you've published in respected journals on the fruitlessness of vivisection? I want to expand my horizons!
Red Stateler wrote:
I want to expand my horizons!
No, you don't. You want to remain confortanble in the little bubble you've erected around your ideas, and no matter how often I say white is white and black is black you just come back adn tell me I've said the opposite - you;'ve just done that twice running now. So there is no point in any further discussion with you. I've told you where you can find a good exposition of the argument against vivisection, but somehow I doubt you'll have either the moral courage or the scientific curiosity to read it.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
I want to expand my horizons!
No, you don't. You want to remain confortanble in the little bubble you've erected around your ideas, and no matter how often I say white is white and black is black you just come back adn tell me I've said the opposite - you;'ve just done that twice running now. So there is no point in any further discussion with you. I've told you where you can find a good exposition of the argument against vivisection, but somehow I doubt you'll have either the moral courage or the scientific curiosity to read it.
Fred_Smith wrote:
No, you don't. You want to remain confortanble in the little bubble you've erected around your ideas, and no matter how often I say white is white and black is black you just come back adn tell me I've said the opposite - you;'ve just done that twice running now. So there is no point in any further discussion with you. I've told you where you can find a good exposition of the argument against vivisection, but somehow I doubt you'll have either the moral courage or the scientific curiosity to read it.
:~ Come on, now. There's no reason to be insulting. You said that your reasons are based in science (I'm guessing that you catch mosquitos in jars "for science") as well. I can only assume that you're a scientists and am interested in your research on the subject so that I can make an informed decision! Geez! Oh yeah, and I would love to accept the authoritative scientific opinion from 1983 coming from a racacar drive[^], but that would just make me feel dirty.
-
I want you to tell me what you really think an individual has the right to when born?
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
I recognize and declare the following rights of man and of the citizen: Article I - Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions can be founded only on the common utility. Article II - The goal of any political association is the conservation of the natural and imprescriptible [i.e., inviolable] rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, safety and resistance against oppression. Article III - The principle of any sovereignty resides essentially in the Nation. No body, no individual can exert authority which does not emanate expressly from it. Article IV - Liberty consists of doing anything which does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of each man has only those borders which assure other members of the society the enjoyment of these same rights. These borders can be determined only by the law. Article V - The law has the right to ward [i.e., forbid] only actions [which are] harmful to the society. Any thing which is not warded [i.e., forbidden] by the law cannot be impeded, and no one can be constrained to do what it [i.e., the law] does not order. Article VI - The law is the expression of the general will. All the citizens have the right of contributing personally or through their representatives to its formation. It must be the same for all, either that it protects, or that it punishes. All the citizens, being equal in its eyes, are equally admissible to all public dignities, places and employments, according to their capacity and without distinction other than that of their virtues and of their talents. Article VII - No man can be accused, arrested nor detained but in the cases determined by the law, and according to the forms which it has prescribed. Those who solicit, dispatch, carry out or cause to be carried out arbitrary orders, must be punished; but any citizen called [i.e., summoned] or seized under the terms of the law must obey at the moment; he renders himself culpable by resistance. Article VIII - The law should establish only strictly and evidently necessary penalties, and no one can be punished but under a law established and promulgated before the offense and [which is] legally applied. Article IX - Any man being presumed innocent until he is declared culpable, if it is judged indispensable to arrest him, any rigor [i.e., action] which would not be necessary for the securing of his person must be severely reprimanded by the law. Article X - No one may be questioned about his opinions, [and the] same [for] religious [opinions], provided that t
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
No, you don't. You want to remain confortanble in the little bubble you've erected around your ideas, and no matter how often I say white is white and black is black you just come back adn tell me I've said the opposite - you;'ve just done that twice running now. So there is no point in any further discussion with you. I've told you where you can find a good exposition of the argument against vivisection, but somehow I doubt you'll have either the moral courage or the scientific curiosity to read it.
:~ Come on, now. There's no reason to be insulting. You said that your reasons are based in science (I'm guessing that you catch mosquitos in jars "for science") as well. I can only assume that you're a scientists and am interested in your research on the subject so that I can make an informed decision! Geez! Oh yeah, and I would love to accept the authoritative scientific opinion from 1983 coming from a racacar drive[^], but that would just make me feel dirty.
So what he used to race cars? Einstien used to be a patent office clerk. It is ridiculous to claim (especially on a public forum like this) that unless one is a published expert in a field you have no right to make any comments. You might as well shut the whole forum down if you're going to say that, and stop all public debate. Arguments should stand or fall on their own merit. For goodness sake Red, please stop resorting to red herrings; if you have nothing better to say, better to say nothing.
-
So what he used to race cars? Einstien used to be a patent office clerk. It is ridiculous to claim (especially on a public forum like this) that unless one is a published expert in a field you have no right to make any comments. You might as well shut the whole forum down if you're going to say that, and stop all public debate. Arguments should stand or fall on their own merit. For goodness sake Red, please stop resorting to red herrings; if you have nothing better to say, better to say nothing.
Fred_Smith wrote:
So what he used to race cars? Einstien used to be a patent office clerk.
Yeah, and he also had a PhD in physics.
Fred_Smith wrote:
It is ridiculous to claim (especially on a public forum like this) that unless one is a published expert in a field you have no right to make any comments. You might as well shut the whole forum down if you're going to say that, and stop all public debate. Arguments should stand or fall on their own merit. For goodness sake Red, please stop resorting to red herrings; if you have nothing better to say, better to say nothing.
While I find your propensity to catch mosquitoes in jars a bit...odd...that behavior is, as I said, benign (i.e. nobody cares). However, you're going several steps further and claiming that certain animal research is not scientifically beneficial in any way and should be halted. In order to make that claim, you'll need to back it up with the arguments of people knowledgeable with that subject. I am certainly not. I have a sneaking suspicion that you are not. A cursory glance at this Hans fellow suggests that he is not. Basically...If you're going to make the claim that your beliefs on the subject are "based in science", it would be helpful if you qualified that claim with evidence and details rather than a book by a race car driver that few people are likely inclined to bother with.
-
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:
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.
At least in the US with very few exceptions the only places that will take any animal are kill shelters that will put them down in short order if not adopted. The no kill places only stay afloat by limiting the animals they accept to the ones who're readily adoptable.
-- If you view money as inherently evil, I view it as my duty to assist in making you more virtuous.
-
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.
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?
Here you go.
Annapoorni Rangarajan & Robert A. Weinberg. 2003. Comparative biology of mouse versus human cells: modelling human cancer in mice. Nature Reviews Cancer 3, 952-959
Important lessons learned from mouse models of carcinogenesis * Cloned candidate human oncogenes that transform cells in vitro can trigger cancer in vivo in transgenic mice, strongly supporting their role in human tumorigenesis. * The deletion of suspected human tumour-suppressor genes from the mouse germline causes tumour susceptibility in these mice, thereby validating these candidate genes as important agents in human carcinogenesis. * Compound mice, which are generated by the interbreeding of mice with specific mutations in oncogenes and tumour-suppressor genes, allow the assessment of how these individual mutations cooperate mechanistically to produce cancer during the course of multistep tumour development. * Ageing telomerase-deficient mice, heterozygous for mutant Trp53, show a pronounced shift in their tumour spectra from the mesenchymal cancers that are usually observed in mice, to epithelial cancers with non-reciprocal translocations — features of neoplastic disease in ageing humans. This indicates that differences in telomere length and regulation impacts tumour spectrum and cytogenetics in the two species. * The inactivation of oncogenic transgenes in already-formed murine tumours causes collapse of these tumours, indicating that alterations that are responsible for initiating tumour formation are also essential for tumour maintenance. * Targeted inactivation of the Nf1 gene in Schwann-cell precursors of mice leads to a neurofibromatosis resembling that seen in humans, which supports the candidacy of these cells as the progenitor cell type in this histologically complex tumor. * Role of stroma in tumour progression: mice that lack mast cells fail to develop certain transgene-induced tumours, indicating that inflammatory cells that are recruited by the tumour contribute in an essential way to tumorigenesis; studies with Id+/-;Id3-/- mice show that recruitment of bone-marrow-derived endothelial precursor cells is required for tumour angiogenesis.
Again: How can you possibly discuss