Hans Ruesch, 1913 - 2007
-
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
-
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
And yet, after tens if not hundreds of millions of sacrificial mice and other animals cancers are still on the increase. No doubt you will claim that we are nearer cures now. Yawn. Never heard that before. We are not - and never will be going down this route. Computer models and research on the (human) cellular level may get us there one day. (Though we'd do better not to get it in the first place, of course, but that's another story...) If you can be bothered to read HR's book, you will find example after example (and expert after expert to testify, if you won't believe me) that vivisection has done more to hinder medical science than help it. I am so not impressed by attempts to blind me with big words and discredit me with the fact that I have not studied medical science for the past ten years. It's just another smokescreen to hide from the real argument - that vivisection has been discredited as a valid scientific method for studying human disease. It is not necessary to be a published expert in a field to be able to comment on it. Arguing otherwise is the last desperate refuge of the defeated. Fred
-
And yet, after tens if not hundreds of millions of sacrificial mice and other animals cancers are still on the increase. No doubt you will claim that we are nearer cures now. Yawn. Never heard that before. We are not - and never will be going down this route. Computer models and research on the (human) cellular level may get us there one day. (Though we'd do better not to get it in the first place, of course, but that's another story...) If you can be bothered to read HR's book, you will find example after example (and expert after expert to testify, if you won't believe me) that vivisection has done more to hinder medical science than help it. I am so not impressed by attempts to blind me with big words and discredit me with the fact that I have not studied medical science for the past ten years. It's just another smokescreen to hide from the real argument - that vivisection has been discredited as a valid scientific method for studying human disease. It is not necessary to be a published expert in a field to be able to comment on it. Arguing otherwise is the last desperate refuge of the defeated. Fred
Fred_Smith wrote:
It's just another smokescreen to hide from the real argument - that vivisection has been discredited as a valid scientific method for studying human disease. It is not necessary to be a published expert in a field to be able to comment on it.
The claim that "vivisection has been discredited as a valid scientific method for studying human disease" transcends mere "comment". That is a material statement that requires at least some factual support. The fact that you "have not studied medical science for the past ten years" lends the statement very little credibility when coming from you.
-
And yet, after tens if not hundreds of millions of sacrificial mice and other animals cancers are still on the increase. No doubt you will claim that we are nearer cures now. Yawn. Never heard that before. We are not - and never will be going down this route. Computer models and research on the (human) cellular level may get us there one day. (Though we'd do better not to get it in the first place, of course, but that's another story...) If you can be bothered to read HR's book, you will find example after example (and expert after expert to testify, if you won't believe me) that vivisection has done more to hinder medical science than help it. I am so not impressed by attempts to blind me with big words and discredit me with the fact that I have not studied medical science for the past ten years. It's just another smokescreen to hide from the real argument - that vivisection has been discredited as a valid scientific method for studying human disease. It is not necessary to be a published expert in a field to be able to comment on it. Arguing otherwise is the last desperate refuge of the defeated. Fred
Fred_Smith wrote:
And yet, after tens if not hundreds of millions of sacrificial mice and other animals cancers are still on the increase.
And there go the goalposts. First you claim that mouse models are not scientifically applicable to humans, now they're not producing enough clinical results quickly enough to be justified. Problem is, your NEW argument is an ethical one and not a scientific one, since it requires measuring the intrinsic value of the lives of millions of mice against the intellectual advances made as a result of those lives. You can have fun debating that with someone else, because I'm perfectly happy sacrificing billions of mice to cancer research, immunology research, and pretty much anything else.
Fred_Smith wrote:
I am so not impressed by attempts to blind me with big words
It's simply a quote from the actual scientific research. It's kind of hard to try to make a scientific argument about scientific research without, you know, actually looking at the science. You seem to be doing a bang-up job, though. :rolleyes:
- F
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
And yet, after tens if not hundreds of millions of sacrificial mice and other animals cancers are still on the increase.
And there go the goalposts. First you claim that mouse models are not scientifically applicable to humans, now they're not producing enough clinical results quickly enough to be justified. Problem is, your NEW argument is an ethical one and not a scientific one, since it requires measuring the intrinsic value of the lives of millions of mice against the intellectual advances made as a result of those lives. You can have fun debating that with someone else, because I'm perfectly happy sacrificing billions of mice to cancer research, immunology research, and pretty much anything else.
Fred_Smith wrote:
I am so not impressed by attempts to blind me with big words
It's simply a quote from the actual scientific research. It's kind of hard to try to make a scientific argument about scientific research without, you know, actually looking at the science. You seem to be doing a bang-up job, though. :rolleyes:
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
And there go the goalposts.
??? I have done no such thing - merely pointed out that vivisection has NOT produced the results. Which I wouldn't expect it to. Sorry if I use emotive language in doing so. It is YOU (and others) who keep trying to push me into an ethical stance on this, and I who keep telling you that I am not interested in that argument. (I do believe in it, but that is a personal choice and a separate issue, and I ma not interested in arguiong it here.) And I also keep saying, and only started this thread to say, that if anyone is interested enough to want to read a proper case against vivisection, then they should read HR's book. I cannot and don't really want to try to condense it into a few posts on this forum; it is a big subject. So please stop telling me what I'm saying and then arguing against it. If you want "quote[s] from the actual scientific research" and actual scientists, and a full and proper exposition of this argument, just read the friggin' book will you?!
-
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:
I am not intersted in arguing the ethics or morality of this subject, [...] but rather the science of it.
Yeah. I've made it half-way through this thread, and you have yet to argue the science of it. You love the HR book, but most of us haven't read it and you won't quote it; i did do a quick search, and found out a bit about HR's career as a race-car driver, and a few brief mentions of his activism later in life... but nothing to make me stop and take notice. If you want to argue against the bad science of vivisection, then go find some good arguments and come back willing to justify them. If you just want to argue... well, i'm guessing that's where the rest of this thread is leading. :|
----
I don't care what you consider witty, but at least I do not blather on posting nonsense like Jim Crafton.
-- Stringcheese, humbled by Crafton's ability to string together multiple sentences
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
I am not intersted in arguing the ethics or morality of this subject, [...] but rather the science of it.
Yeah. I've made it half-way through this thread, and you have yet to argue the science of it. You love the HR book, but most of us haven't read it and you won't quote it; i did do a quick search, and found out a bit about HR's career as a race-car driver, and a few brief mentions of his activism later in life... but nothing to make me stop and take notice. If you want to argue against the bad science of vivisection, then go find some good arguments and come back willing to justify them. If you just want to argue... well, i'm guessing that's where the rest of this thread is leading. :|
----
I don't care what you consider witty, but at least I do not blather on posting nonsense like Jim Crafton.
-- Stringcheese, humbled by Crafton's ability to string together multiple sentences
F***s sake, all I did was recommend a book, and give some idea as to my thoughts on it. Amd say that if you want to hear the whole argument GO READ THAT. (Though there are, actually, a few quotes from it dotted throughout this thread if you can be bothered.) I'm sick to death of arguing with people about this, and didn't really want to get drawn into it again. But it just amazes me (well, no, it doesn't actually) the spite and vitriol this subject brings out in people. It really does strike a raw nerve with you all... much more so than I've ever seen any one here display over politics, the GW debate, religion even,... quite interesting that, really...