| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"SpiKe" |
| Date: |
04 Sep 2005 06:18:43 AM |
| Object: |
Home Office bans US Philosopher from entering UK |
If anyone is interested
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/news/2005/0508best.htm
.
|
|
| User: "Robert Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Home Office bans US Philosopher from entering UK |
05 Sep 2005 05:50:31 PM |
|
|
Vivesection (exploiting live non-human mostly primates and mammals in
often
cruel, torturous medical experimentations) is a phenomenon which I
suppose most of us do not want/desire to discuss/"dissect."
But I semi-courageously nevertheless dare here to try:
As a matter of personal fact, I didn't like dissecting a dead frog in
biology class, though maybe it was the formaldyhyde smell as much as
the memorable fascinating
ghoulishness in the learning exercise.
Here's some dilemmas or
problems of which most of us are aware.
There is a "food chain," and Darwinists and Spencerians (social
Darwinists) to remind us where we're at in the caste system. Most of us
are carnivores + herbivores (meat + vegetables
& fruit consumers).
There is sports hunting, a beastly recreation practice or past-time to
some, though fulfilling fun for others. "Beastly" may not be the
appropriate term--how about "sub-beastly" or maybe "hyper-beastly" or
"humanly?"
And us Jews is more aware of:
There is kosher meat versus traffir (see a BIBLE or don't
invite a schecat (ritual slaughterer)
to lunch. I eat traff, tho for whatever resons
generally avoid pork. Shell-fish (lobster, shrimp, crab, jelly-fish,
bloated beach things) aren't kosher either, but I don't boycott Red
Lobster, though anchovie pizza is a no-no at their Olive Garden next
door.
And my bottomline bumper-sticker is:
Experiment or be experimented-upon or dead.
If ye anti-
vivesectionists are also natural healingists or Christian Science
followers, then okay, you're consistent.
But if ye take drug medications, vaccines, and/
or use the
cosmetics that are initially
tested on animals too, then welcome to my ambiguous world of
semi-vivesection, semi-morality
and ethical relativism.
Do ye treat your dwelling's
foundation for termites, or spray poison to kill insects?
Is there an ethical issue in such?
If this is considered reducto ad absurdum, then I withdraw the
question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SpiKe" |
|
| Title: Re: Home Office bans US Philosopher from entering UK |
06 Sep 2005 09:28:57 AM |
|
|
"Robert Cohen" <robtcohen@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1125960631.928603.34510@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The ethical issue (at least to me) is that as a species we have an
anthropocentric view of the universe. This has led us to believe that we
have the 'right' to exploit the natural world for our own benefit. The
beleif is justified with an appeal to a Humanistic Utilitarian phallacy.
There is a difference between aquiring something because it is 'vital' to
our survival and aquiring something because it 'can' be exploited.
Heideggar believed that something 'went wrong' with our Ontological thinking
with the Sophists who changed the focus of speculation of the cosmos and
instead introduced the human being as the centre of meaning. This has never
been 'corrected' (for want of a better word) with the exception of Spinoza,
it has remained with us.
Christianity has also placed man as the centre of the universe and with dire
consequences. The jewish thinker Maimonides
argued the point that before adam there was nature so the christian position
is a false one man should not 'have dominion over nature'.
Apart from the ethical issue (and the repugnant brutality) of it all the
whole notion of vivisection is built upon a lie. Any tests carried out on
animals is a completely superfluous excercise. We are different species.
Recently Merck (a giant pharmaceutical company) has had to consider paying
out of court settlements to families of their dead customers. Why ? Because
their drug Vioxx (a painkiler for arthritus) had been instrumental in their
deaths. It has emerged that Vioxx was tested on human lab cultures (that
gave negative results) and monkeys (that gave positive results). Which
results did they go with ? ..... yep the monkey results. They ignored the
other findings in favour of the ones that could give them the go ahead and
produce it anyway (at vast and I mean vast profits = Vioxx was sold all over
the world in massive quantities).
http://www.newstarget.com/009706.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4189354.stm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Home Office bans US Philosopher from entering UK |
06 Sep 2005 10:21:52 AM |
|
|
Apart from the ethical issue (and the repugnant brutality) of it all the
whole notion of vivisection is built upon a lie. Any tests carried out on
animals is a completely superfluous excercise. We are different species.
Using lab rats, guinea pigs, monkeys, et cetera
& "different species"
for testing is the common practice for which you hold as wrongful
morally and practically.
Well, at least in the "practical" aspect, we have a seemingly factual
ossue/thing in debate.
I do not want to empty the cages until human diseases are cured:
Perhaps the stem cell/embryo cell experiments on sentient animals like
my cat ....
As a pet-owner ("Beauty" is my Siberian cat), I can easily understand
the empathy the anti-vivesectionist feels.
I try not to think about what goes on, though hereaby concede I
understand your feelings.
Factual disputation is sumthin else.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SpiKe" |
|
| Title: Re: Home Office bans US Philosopher from entering UK |
06 Sep 2005 05:48:57 PM |
|
|
"Robert Cohen" <robtcohen@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1126020112.570330.37880@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I do not want to empty the cages until human diseases are cured:
So animals are there to be used by us.
Even if I give you that the facts do not support the theory.
Perhaps the stem cell/embryo cell experiments on sentient animals like
my cat ....
I dont understand what you mean by this.
I try not to think about what goes on,
Which is why it goes on.
Factual disputation is sumthin else.
Many highly respected and expert scientists dispute the validity of such
experiments.
The results are not only dubious but unnecessary unless we use them to
'cure'
the animal in the test.
Please remember that most of the scientists who support such experiments are
the ones
doing the experiments. They get huge grants for it.
Educate yourself and read the following links:
http://www.uncaged.co.uk/vivisect.htm
http://www.vivisectioninfo.org/faq.html
http://www.saav.org.za/faq.php
http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/online/research/dav.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
