Wiggy
|
Re: anti-vivisectionists on medication?
Sep 12, 2005, 09:01
|
Kalamansi ..... a close relative of the Lemon and of the Manao. =;o)
And if you eat too much fruit in Thailand you may have to visit the Hongnam!!!
Looks like I've missed a cracking row while I've been away from the computer. Must admit I find it really difficult to take a position on this (although I used to be in BUAV). A lot of animal experiments are pointlessly repetitive, and I never saw the point of benchmarks like "LD 50%", but it's not black and white to me.
|
PMM
|
Re: anti-vivisectionists on medication?
Sep 12, 2005, 09:16
|
|
Disagreeable, Lawrence? In what way?
|
Wiggy
|
Re: anti-vivisectionists on medication?
Sep 12, 2005, 09:27
|
Keep posting.
We're all big grown ups here, and if I don't agree with you I'll say so. I expect the same treatment from you.
=;o)
|
Lawrence
|
Re: anti-vivisectionists on medication?
Sep 12, 2005, 12:59
|
Well I just don't think you can justify fox-hunting. Period.
Going back to BSSM, y'know I'm not outright Politically Correct either. I've been in trouble here for being a fan of Death In June for one thing. And I dare to reveal how hypocritical alot of the 'anti-fascist' movement has gotten, especially in their treatment of such misunderstood bands as DIJ.
And lately I've had alot to say about the outright hypocrisy of the Israel lobby. I just heard about this today:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1568001,00.html
And hearing about ultra-Zionist 'neo-conservatives' like David Horowitz who want to suppress any book critical of Israel. One of the books he sought to suppress was about Israel's downing of an American warship. I talked to someone at work who served in the Navy and was on that ship... And I recently posted about some Jews raising objections to some stupid book about dating Jews. I just don't see why these people have to be so touchy about a rather harmless book...
|
Lawrence
|
Re: anti-vivisectionists on medication?
Sep 12, 2005, 13:01
|
|
I didn't even mention how I feel about gun-rights. I'm sure that opinion would be unpopular here...
|
Merrick
|
Re: anti-vivisectionists on medication?
Sep 12, 2005, 16:58
|
I too am genuinely surprised at the level of fire in this argument. I think you raised a perfectly fair question there, BSSM.
And certainly, whilst there are a lot of commonly held viewpoints here on HH there's no way we all sign up to any one overarching credo, and this board should be about being able to pick apart ideas, to challenge them in an intelligent way.
If someone holds a view then they should be able to explin why, to defend it in some way beyond 'i don't like it'.
As both you and Rhiannon pointed out, we are all hypocrites. Indeed, the only people who aren't are those with no morals whatsoever. One of the first feature articles in U-Know was about precisely this point
http://www.headheritage.co.uk/uknow/features/index.php?id=3
For my own point, I'm broadly against animal experimentation, but i do use medicines tested on animals. Where there are effective alrternatives I use them, but with some medicines there simply are not.
So then I'm faced with the dilemma; is the suffering caused by my encouragement of animal-tested medicines worth the relief gained by my using that medicine?
It is, as Rhiannon mentions, a similar predicament to those of us who dislike fossil fuels yet use buses or cars or trains. There are a few who really will make the effort and not use any fossil transport, and more power to them (no pun intended) for pushing us all on the issue.
But for most of us, it is a matter of reducing use, of cutting it down to a large extent, of raising the issue so that alternatives come through and people in future don't have to be pushed into these awful choices.
The use of such medicines by no means indicates an across the board approval for vivisection, but I'm sure that's not what you were implying anyway.
I find it odd that this issue raises such ire in people when similar ones - such as the fossil fuel use - do not. Not sure why that is. Perhaps it's cos fossil fuel use doesn't conjour up images of helpless animals in agony. Although it should, given what oil companies do to the environment.
I too would like to hear the reasoned opinion of someone with an absolutist position against all vivisection when they see how much good can be done with animal medicines. It's a really tough call and I find it hard to have a consistent opinion on it.
|
