Ethics (was: Who's "Him"?)

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:37:53 -0000, "pearl" wrote:

'An introduction to bunny hugging

We are kind to a select few animals, and horribly cruel to many others

Posted By DANIEL WILSON

Posted 1 day ago
.. . .
torture them for scientific curiosity.
__________________________________________________ _______
If scientists could replace animal research and testing
with methods which did not need to use animals then
they would.

There are several reasons for this:

* Scientists do not like or want to use animals in research.
Like the vast majority of people they do not want to see animals
suffer unnecessarily. In fact less than 10% of biomedical research
uses animals. Unfortunately for much of the work involved in
biomedical research there are as yet no working alternative
techniques that would allow us to stop using animals.

* Biomedical research is producing thousands of new compounds,
which may have potential as new drugs. It is much more efficient to
screen these compounds using rapid non-animal techniques to test
their effectiveness and toxicity.

* The very high standards of animal welfare and care required of
British research establishments are a contributory factor in making
animal research very expensive. If scientists can develop alternatives
to using animals it will allow them to divert their limited research funds
to other areas of research.
[...]
http://www.bret.org.uk/noan.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
From the bald eagle to the red wolf, biomedical research has
helped bring many species back from the brink of extinction.
Conservation and captive breeding programs, often using
fertilization techniques developed for humans, have made it
possible for these animals to be reintroduced into the wild, and
today their numbers are growing. Biologists and wildlife
veterinarians rely on the latest research in reproduction, nutrition,
toxicology and medicine to build a better future for our wild
animals.

In vitro fertilization, sperm banks and artificial insemination were
all developed to help human couples, but today they also are
regularly used to ensure the survival of endangered species.
[...]

http://fbresearch.org/helpingwildlife.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
WITHOUT ANIMAL RESEARCH:

Polio would kill or cripple thousands of unvaccinated children and
adults this year.

Most of the nation's one million insulin-dependent diabetics wouldn't
be insulin dependent -- they would be dead.

60 million Americans would risk death from heart attack, stroke or
kidney failure from lack of medication to control their high blood
pressure.

Doctors would have no chemotherapy to save the 70% of children who
now survive acute lymphocytic leukemia.

More than one million Americans would lose vision in at least one eye
this year because cataract surgery would be impossible.

Hundreds of thousands of people disabled by strokes or by head or
spinal cord injuries would not benefit from rehabilitation techniques.

The more than 100,000 people with arthritis who each year receive hip
replacements would walk only with great pain and difficulty or be
confined to wheelchairs.

7,500 newborns who contract jaundice each year would develop cerebral
palsy, now preventable through phototherapy.

There would be no kidney dialysis to extend the lives of thousands of
patients with end-stage renal disease.

Surgery of any type would be a painful, rare procedure without the
development of modern anesthesia allowing artificially induced
unconsciousness or local or general insensitivity to pain.

Instead of being eradicated, smallpox would continue unchecked and many
others would join the two million people already killed by the disease.

Millions of dogs, cats, and other pets and farm animals would have died
from anthrax, distemper, canine parvovirus, feline leukemia, rabies and
more than 200 other diseases now preventable thanks to animal research.

http://www.ampef.org/research.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
We live longer and healthier lives than ever before. Animal research has
improved the treatment of infections, helped with immunisation, improved
cancer treatment and had a big impact on managing heart disease, brain
disorders, arthritis and transplantation. My own field, the prevention of
genetic disorders in babies, has been possible only because of humane
work on animals.

Animal rights activists talk about cruelty and torture, some backing their
assertions by publishing out-of-date photographs of "experiments"
banned long ago. This is a misrepresentation.
....

Some so-called anti-vivisection organisations would have people believe
that animal research does not work. This is simply a lie. Animals do not
give information that is 100% accurate when applied to humans, but they
do provide invaluable information that cannot be replaced by computer
modelling, cell culture or human experimentation. Mice have virtually the
same genes as humans, which is why they are so useful for exploring
human physiology.

Animal research has contributed to 70% of the Nobel prizes for physiology
or medicine; many award-winning scientists say that they could not have
made their discoveries without animals. Polio would still be claiming hundreds
of lives a year in Britain if it wasn't for animal research by the Nobel
laureate
Albert Sabin. "There could have been no oral polio vaccine without the use
of innumerable animals," he once said."
....

The last big drug disaster in the UK happened because of a lack of animal
research. Four decades ago, when thalidomide's awful effects were revealed,
the drug was returned to the lab to be tested on pregnant animals for the first
time. Birth defects were quickly seen in mice and rabbits. This prompted an
overhaul of the legislation and is the basis for our laws on drug development.
....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...ticle_continue
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 Goo wrote:

pearl wrote:
'An introduction to bunny hugging

[snip bull****]

Just classic!

Wow Goo. You not only continue to outstupid yourself,
but you also keep managing to outhalfass yourself too.
When I saw another one of Goo's posts of course I expected
lameness and absurdity, and probably dishonesty (but the first
post in a thread is sometimes too early to start with the lying
even for you), but damn Goober...you just flopped on your
ass in your own **** with that one. Why don't you jump in
there with your idiotic claims about animals being unable
to experience emotions, and being unaware that they can
see and hear, and some of those lame stupidities, Goob?
Get 'er Goober...get 'er...
__________________________________________________ _______
"Animals do not have a sense of insult." - Goo

"Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or cattle, or
any other animal you've ever encountered." - Goo

"Animals do not experience frustration." - Goo

"Animals cannot be or feel disappointed." - Goo

"Non human animals experience neither pride nor
disappointment. They don't have the mental ability
to feel either." - Goo

"Anticipation requires language." - Goo

"No animals anticipate." - Goo

"Dogs, cats, cattle, almost all animals "lower" than
the great apes have no sense of self." - Goo

"They are not aware that they can see. " - Goo

"They are *not* aware that they can smell." - Goo

"Darwin, a sentimental person, was projecting. He
saw something that wasn't there. He was, in a way,
hallucinating." - Goo

"The dog didn't do what Darwin said. His statement of
the "changes in behavior" is not reliable." - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 07:06:21 -0400, Hoots wrote:

Ron Hamilton wrote:
Hoots wrote:
dh@. wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 07:04:09 -0400, Hoots wrote:

dh@. wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 07:08:40 -0400, Hoots wrote:

Goo wrote:
You ****ed up, stupid gash: you tried to justify lions'
predation - an offensive action - by invoking humans' right to
defend themselves against human predation. You ****ed up. You
always **** up. You're a ****-up - a stupid, new-age, crackpot
****-up and dumb gash.
But she's a great dancer!
Don't bet on it. She may have some good points though. She

Maybe her points are sitting up high.

Way up firm and high?

May be, especially when she thinks about Goo ;¬)

Well, whoever the Gooster is would be lucky then I guess.

Goo is the person to whom you replied: Goo****wit "Bumper" David
Harrison. He's a stupid high school drop-out living on a rusty
houseboat on Lake Lanier, northeast of Atlanta. He is admittedly
stupid. Goo is short for Goober, and as you know, Goober is a common
term for stupid southerners. Goo is also known as ****wit.


There seems to be a large cast of characters in this play,

The person who wrote that was almost certainly Goo himself
pretending to be someone else...this time someone who actually
does exist but who also would be very unlikely to lie about who
Goo is. It's a very common trick for Goo to dishonestly post as
another existing person, just as it's common for him to invent
"people" to post as as well.

but without a
libretto, I can't figure them out.

Goo has dishonestly posted as all of the characters I told you
about and more. Since he was always pretending to be so many
different people a common way of referring to "all" of the one person
was a good idea, and since he's a moron who considers himself
a genius Goobernicus seemed a good choice as a way of referring
to him/"them". Since rumor has it that Goo's last name might in
reality be "ball", Gonad seemed an excellent last name for the
chosen way of referring to "everyone" Goo pretended to be, hence
Goobernicus Gonad became an excellent way of referring to the
many characters of Goo...Goo for short. After years of it the
overly impressed and underly imaginative Goober began referring
to me as Goo too for some reason(s) having to do with great
lameness and ineptitude, etc.

On with the show!

dh@. wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 07:06:21 -0400, Hoots wrote:

Ron Hamilton wrote:
Hoots wrote:
dh@. wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 07:04:09 -0400, Hoots wrote:

dh@. wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 07:08:40 -0400, Hoots wrote:

Goo wrote:
You ****ed up, stupid gash: you tried to justify lions'
predation - an offensive action - by invoking humans' right to
defend themselves against human predation. You ****ed up. You
always **** up. You're a ****-up - a stupid, new-age, crackpot
****-up and dumb gash.
But she's a great dancer!
Don't bet on it. She may have some good points though. She
Maybe her points are sitting up high.

Way up firm and high?
May be, especially when she thinks about Goo ;¬)
Well, whoever the Gooster is would be lucky then I guess.
Goo is the person to whom you replied: Goo****wit "Bumper" David
Harrison. He's a stupid high school drop-out living on a rusty
houseboat on Lake Lanier, northeast of Atlanta. He is admittedly
stupid. Goo is short for Goober, and as you know, Goober is a common
term for stupid southerners. Goo is also known as ****wit.

There seems to be a large cast of characters in this play,

The person who wrote that was almost certainly Goo himself
pretending to be someone else...this time someone who actually
does exist but who also would be very unlikely to lie about who
Goo is. It's a very common trick for Goo to dishonestly post as
another existing person, just as it's common for him to invent
"people" to post as as well.

but without a
libretto, I can't figure them out.

Goo has dishonestly posted as all of the characters I told you
about and more. Since he was always pretending to be so many
different people a common way of referring to "all" of the one person
was a good idea, and since he's a moron who considers himself
a genius Goobernicus seemed a good choice as a way of referring
to him/"them". Since rumor has it that Goo's last name might in
reality be "ball", Gonad seemed an excellent last name for the
chosen way of referring to "everyone" Goo pretended to be, hence
Goobernicus Gonad became an excellent way of referring to the
many characters of Goo...Goo for short. After years of it the
overly impressed and underly imaginative Goober began referring
to me as Goo too for some reason(s) having to do with great
lameness and ineptitude, etc.

On with the show!


That sure cleared things up.

:-/

pearl wrote:
"Hoots" wrote in message .. .
pearl wrote:
"Ron Hamilton" wrote in message m...

From: Ron Hamilton
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.101.104.64

From: Rudy Canoza
Reply-To:
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.101.104.64

Is fraud ethically permitted and morally correct behaviour, ball?







I'm still working on the ipse dixit thing, so I have no clue about this.

'ipsedixitism
..
IN BRIEF: n. - An unsupported dogmatic assertion.
..
Latin "Ipse dixit" ("Himself said [it]") ..
..
Ipsedixitisms are given as though /absolutely no supporting argument/
is necessary.
..
Modern dictionaries dramatically narrow the class by associating it
with arbitrary, dogmatic belief, implying that the argument has been
repeated after having been challenged2.
..'
http://www.answers.com/topic/ipsedixitism

'dogmatic adj.
..
Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved
or unprovable principles. See synonyms at dictatorial.
..'
http://www.answers.com/topic/dogmatic

TSH.



Flirt. :-)

Omelet wrote:
In article ,
"FOB" wrote:

Crossposted ot crap.

PLONK!

I had fun brightlighting rabbits at night in the west Texas desert.
An AR-15 decapitates them nicely, and gives me moving target practice.

They are also delicious.

You sure know how to sweet-talk the ladies, don't you?

On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 16:16:48 -0000, "pearl" wrote:

"Omelet" wrote in message news
In article ,
"FOB" wrote:

Crossposted ot crap.

PLONK!

I had fun brightlighting rabbits at night in the west Texas desert.
.. . .
They are also delicious.

'The big problem we have before us in the meat industry is to how
to reduce the levels of fat in meat without leaving it dry and tasteless
when we eat it. Fat contributes a lot of taste to meat, particularly
those flavours that allow us to recognize one species from another.
Without it, we may end up with just a bland, general meaty taste.

I've always found rabbit to be dry myself, probably because
they're grazing animals. Squirrels have a lot more flavor and
a better texture to their flesh.

On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 11:43:10 -0000, "pearl" wrote:

dh@. wrote in message ...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:37:53 -0000, "pearl" wrote:

'An introduction to bunny hugging

We are kind to a select few animals, and horribly cruel to many others

Posted By DANIEL WILSON

Posted 1 day ago
. . .
torture them for scientific curiosity.
__________________________________________________ _______
If scientists could replace animal research and testing

Repeatedly rebutted (search archive) pro-vivisection spam snipped.

Animal Experimentation
- The Facts
http://www.uncaged.co.uk/vivisect.htm

'Werner Hartinger, M.D. a surgeon in West Germany stated in 1989,
"There are, in fact, only two categories of doctors and scientists
who are not opposed to vivisection: those who don't know enough
about it, and those who make money from it."

All doctors make money from it. Duh. All of society benefits
from it too. It's interesting, amusing and pathetic that the people
who pretend to be the biggest authorities on it can't:

1. appreciate the ways that humans and many other animals
benefit from what is learned from it.

2. suggest anything any better than the research they so
ignorantly say is of no value.

If you people think you know of better ways of getting the
answers than by doing research on animals, then why don't
you just DO IT? You can't, because the idea is bull****. If
it weren't, then it would be done instead of still needing to
be done. On the positive side which you can't appreciate
(like you can't appreciate the lives of livestock...), what
has been done has been done.

dh@. wrote in message ...
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:37:53 -0000, "pearl" wrote:

'An introduction to bunny hugging

We are kind to a select few animals, and horribly cruel to many others

Posted By DANIEL WILSON

Posted 1 day ago
. . .
torture them for scientific curiosity.
__________________________________________________ _______
If scientists could replace animal research and testing

Repeatedly rebutted (search archive) pro-vivisection spam snipped.

Animal Experimentation
- The Facts
http://www.uncaged.co.uk/vivisect.htm

'Werner Hartinger, M.D. a surgeon in West Germany stated in 1989,
"There are, in fact, only two categories of doctors and scientists
who are not opposed to vivisection: those who don't know enough
about it, and those who make money from it."
.....'
http://www.navs.org/site/PageServer?...ain_sci_defend