jc5z+@andrew.cmu.edu (John L. Cusack) (04/25/88)
Only sick and abnormal people do this crap for a living. Why don't those of you who do stuff like this get a real life and do something that is useful. I think we should take those doctors who do this experimentation on animals and do the same on them. Why don't we take little babies and shock them? They're human right, and to do something like that is not humane. So why do it to animals if we can't do it for humans? I hope one more thing to say. Rot in HELL you commy bastards.
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (04/26/88)
In article <UWQpB7A97E-01Iw0=q@andrew.cmu.edu> jc5z+@andrew.cmu.edu (John L. Cusack) writes: >I think we should take those doctors who do this experimentation on animals >and do the same on them. There wasn't enough information in the original posting to determine whether the cited animal research was for its own sake (in which case I agree that it should not have been done) or in pursuit of some other problem (in which case it might have been justified). Consider: Suppose that you could reduce human suffering and prolong human life as the probable result of performing experiments that would require inflicting pain and death on several (non-human) animals, and that no other approach would succeed. Would the experiments be justified? I don't think you need to post answers to this question, just think about what the appropriate criteria are.
till@didsgn.UUCP (didsgn) (04/26/88)
In article <7767@brl-smoke.ARPA>, gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) writes: > In article <UWQpB7A97E-01Iw0=q@andrew.cmu.edu> jc5z+@andrew.cmu.edu (John L. Cusack) writes: > >I think we should take those doctors who do this experimentation on animals > >and do the same on them. > > There wasn't enough information in the original posting to determine > whether the cited animal research was for its own sake (in which case > I agree that it should not have been done) or in pursuit of some other > problem (in which case it might have been justified). > > Consider: Suppose that you could reduce human suffering and prolong > human life as the probable result of performing experiments that would > require inflicting pain and death on several (non-human) animals, and > that no other approach would succeed. Would the experiments be justified? > I don't think you need to post answers to this question, just think about > what the appropriate criteria are. Consider... What if the answer was "No" ?? There was a profound utterance in A C Clarke's "Deep Range" about how we might be judged by whoever rises to do so depending on the way we have treated our fellow creatures... A frightening thought, is it not? ------------------------------------------------------------ Till Noever Path: till@didsgn.UUCP or gatech!rebel!didsgn!till ------------------------------------------------------------
jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt) (04/27/88)
In article <UWQpB7A97E-01Iw0=q@andrew.cmu.edu> jc5z+@andrew.cmu.edu (John L. Cusack) writes: >Only sick and abnormal people do this crap for a living. Why don't those of >you who do stuff like this get a real life and do something that is useful. I >think we should take those doctors who do this experimentation on animals and >do the same on them. Why don't we take little babies and shock them? They're >human right, and to do something like that is not humane. So why do it to >animals if we can't do it for humans? I agree with John, and I support him. In fact, if he will report to HEW I will see what I can do to see that he is used for drug reaction test and trauma treatment research. I am sure thousands of people will approve of the improved accuracy in the fight against, say, AIDS knowing Mr. Cusack has volunteered to be used in the testing. My hat is off to you, John. Of course, I am not going to do any such stupid thing myself, and much prefer animals to suffer than children. Just a matter of tastes, I assume.... Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5
jc5z+@andrew.cmu.edu (John L. Cusack) (04/30/88)
> "Suppose that you could reduce human suffering and prolong > human life as the probable result of performing experiments that would > require inflicting pain and death on several (non-human) animals, and > that no other approach would succeed. Would the experiments be justified? > I don't think you need to post answers to this question, just think about > what the appropriate criteria are." Well I hate to tell you about something like this, since I'm not to answer this question, but suppose you can reduce human suffering or prolong life. What good is there if you don't have anything to eat or other things. The suffering would also be that there wouldn't be anything to enjoy if life is prolong for a long time. You are suppose to enjoy life, because it's a gift to you as a human, and you should not take it for granted. Well since doctors can kill and torture animals, why can't humans kill humans. It may be against the judgement of God, but what the Hell we can kill Gods animals so why not kill ourselves. The point is that everybody is forgetting that we are also an animal, that God created.
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (04/30/88)
In article <UWSA6EyS2k-01xc0=6@andrew.cmu.edu> jc5z+@andrew.cmu.edu (John L. Cusack) writes: [Quoting my earlier posting:] >> I don't think you need to post answers to this question, just think about >> what the appropriate criteria are." >It may be against the judgement of God, but what the Hell we can kill Gods >animals so why not kill ourselves. The point is that everybody is forgetting >that we are also an animal, that God created. The reason I suggested not posting answers is that I rather expected this sort of argumentation. It seems that when people's emotions get involved, their ability to reason goes out the window. The obvious counterargument would be that many animals kill other animals as part of nature's survival scheme. In any case, the term "animal" was being originally used to denote non-human animals, as was clear from context. I don't know what the "sci.research" newsgroup is for, but this probably isn't it.
johne@astroatc.UUCP (Jonathan Eckrich) (05/02/88)
In article <UWSA6EyS2k-01xc0=6@andrew.cmu.edu> jc5z+@andrew.cmu.edu (John L. Cusack) writes: >Well I hate to tell you about something like this, since I'm not to answer this >question, but suppose you can reduce human suffering or prolong life. What >good is there if you don't have anything to eat or other things. The suffering >would also be that there wouldn't be anything to enjoy if life is prolong for a >long time. You are suppose to enjoy life, because it's a gift to you as a >human, and you should not take it for granted. > >Well since doctors can kill and torture animals, why can't humans kill humans. >It may be against the judgement of God, but what the Hell we can kill Gods >animals so why not kill ourselves. The point is that everybody is forgetting >that we are also an animal, that God created. I am hesitant to post this to this group because I think this argument is better left to one of those soap box groups, none of which I subscribe to, but here- goes anyway. I take it from your response that you are opposed to the use of animals for scientific research purposes. I happen to support such a USE of animals. I take exception to certain statements in the above text. I don't fully understand what the point is of the first paragraph, but the second paragraph is clear. Doctors and researchers don't 'torture' or kill animals because it turns them on. Many of their jobs would not exsist if they could not use animal subjects. The results of their work are vastly inmeasurable in their contribution to improving the quality of life of all humans, and many animal species, including those species that the animal subjects are/were members of. Ever since man's hominids first picked up a bone to fend off an intruding preditor, we have been using animals to sustain and improve our lives. Just because today it is done in schools and hospitals in a considerably more complex, technical way, does not mean that it is any less important to our survival. As long as you brought up the subject of God, I shall continue on that note. God GAVE us the animals as gifts not to abuse, but to use by us, for us, for our benefit. Destroying individuals for what we as a whole deem a necessary cause, is in no way comp- arable to mass annihilation of a species, as we nearly did to the buffalo. I know that you do not condone the killing of humans simply because we currently kill animals. In your last statement, you accuse people of forgetting that we are also animals that God created. You seem to be forgetting that we are LIKE the animals in only a very superficial sense. Our bodies are mere husks by which the choices we make may be manifested. The difference is that we have souls. Animals have only husks. We are not gifts to them. We are not on an equal level with them, in God's eye's. They are gifts to us, that are to be used for our benifit, but not abused. Most of us probably wouldn't even exsist if we were never to use animals for our benifit, and this would deny us the greatest gift we could ever be given, our existance. -- (rutgers, ames)!uwvax!astroatc!johne | ihnp4!nicmad!astroatc!johne N1000M, 1948 Stinson 108-3 i12av8