From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 05:01:50 GMT

In article <C0Cypv.6qF@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1993Jan4.184046.7595@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
>> In article <C05A0w.3vB@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>>In order to analyze a problem critically, I need to understand the
>>>underlying assumptions.   In a previous posting, you stated that
>>>it's wrong to torture a human, not because torture is thoroughly
>>>unpleasant, but because humans have rights.
>> 
gp>> You then misunderstand my meaning.  I will be happy to discuss the issue
gp>> as soon as you provide the "alleged" cat shooting experiment ref.( as per
gp>> our deal)
>
>Suit yourself.  James Hoskins posed the original query, and he's the
>one who introduced your ideas into the discussion.  Not me.
>
James said nothing about my statemnts on the ethics of torture.  Don't
attempt to shift the blame were it does not belong.  You typed in the
above statement, you introduced the idea of "torture".
[..]
>> 
gp>> I did not say my research is a necessity (I said the use of animals in my
gp>> research is a necessity).  Good god Russell, its right there in front
gpof you >> how can you misread it.
gp>> If you want me to say if my research is a necessity, ask me.  
gp>> What I did say was that the alleviation of human suffering is a ethical
gp>> responsibility.  Animal research is a necessity in fulfilling that
gp>> responsibility.
>
>Why don't you go back and re-read Hoskin's original post?  Here's 
>a fragment:
[...]
I'm quite aware of what the post stated.

>
>Pacheco has stated that he viewed observation as the lesser of 
>the evils when he was confronted with the conditions in Taub's 
>lab.  When Hoskins asked me if your ideas were analogous, it 
>wasn't at all clear if you see anything evil whatsoever when it 
>comes to animal use.  

Well, now you know that there are intances when I find animal use unethical.
BTW, what happened to *misuse*?

>
>Yes, yes.  We realize that you "need" animals in order to pursue
>your research.  It's unclear, however, how/why you consider your
>research to be a necessity.

I never stated that my research was a necessity!  Strike two!  You have
twice claimed that I stated my research is a necessity, when I have made
no such claim.  I'm not saying my research is not a necessity either. 
But, you are assuming this is my belief.  My Dad always told me when you
assume, you make an ass of yourself.  I guess he was right.

Again, if you want me to state "for the record" whether or not I believe my
research to be a necessity, ask me?  Unlike others (well, one other) in this
group, I answer questions posed to me.
Oh yeah, if you do ask me, please define what you mean by necessity
(e.g. ethically, medically etc...).

I am not going into detail on the type of research I am involved in, here.
 It would probably bore most of the readers.  If you are interested in
details of of my work let me know.(I don't know if I'll do anthing about
it.  But, let me know. Kind of like a cat shooting experiment I heard about
once, huh?)

                                   Fondly,
                                    Greg



-- 
The opinions expressed here are my own.  **   Knowledge goes on forever! 
Which is to say they belong to me.       **   Spelling stops at the 
And these opinions, which belong to me,  **   end of the page.
are mine.                                *******************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals