From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 22:59:06 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> If your question about my presence in Athens, Georgia, was unrelated
rl> to our exchange here, why was it included on your list of "pertinent"
rl> questions?

From article <mhulsey-221292083956@fatrat.fcs.uga.edu>, by mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey):
mh> If this particular question was impertinent, why did it receive 
mh> the most prompt and straightforward answer ever recorded from you 
mh> on Usenet?  

The answer is: it didn't.  You posed the question many times 
before I finally decided to respond.  It's probable that I would 
have neglected to respond had my work schedule been more hectic 
on the day in question.  It would be foolish, but not atypical, 
for you to infer that my eventual response confers some sort of 
merit on your "unanswered questions".  

[various stupid comments and questions deleted]

>> Most of what I know about thalidomide was gleaned from several 
>> nights of _historical_ research at the LSU Dental School 
>> library...  going through old issues of Goodman and Gillman, JAMA, 
>> Science, and the Journal of Dental Research.  I don't believe 
>> I've ever come across any "pamphlets" concerning thalidomide.  
> 
> Don't get too preoccupied about "pamphlets."  I indicated other sources of
> information as well.
> 
> You have severely and repeatedly criticized me for citing an endocrine
> journal with respect to nazi animal protection.  Why do you simultaneously
> feel comfortable citing a dental journal with respect to the thalidomide
> incident?  Is this yet another of your many double standards?

This is a reasonable question.  And my answer is, "not really".

Dr. Francis Kelsey wrote an article for the Journal of Dental 
Research in which she described her connections with thalidomide and,
as you know (or ought to know), her personal testimony carries
quite a bit of weight for anyone who wishes to understand why the
thalidomide disaster didn't affect women in the US.

The article would have been just as important to an historian had 
it been published in a newspaper or on the backs of bubble gum 
wrappers.  

>> > At least I was able to determine which one supports animal "rights" and
>> > which one does not.  You were unable to ascertain this, as evidence by
>> > another post.
>> 
>> Not exactly.  
> 
> This is another example of your waffling prevarication.  You claimed that
> Singer supported animal "rights."  I refuted your claim with a reference,
> so now you try to wiggle out of your embarrassing position.  Why don't you
> simply admit that you are wrong?

I made no such claim, Martin.  In fact, I've mentioned to you many 
times that Singer is *not* an absolutist.  Had you read Singer's book, 
you would know that he makes a point of saying that it might be a 
"good" thing (overall) to torture a single innocent human being if 
such an action might save millions of other human beings.  This 
implies that human rights, not just animal rights, are *not* etched in 
stone.   Would this imply that Singer is not an "animal rights" 
advocate in the same sense as Tom Regan?  Perhaps, but in such a case
you'd have to say that I'm not an animal rights advocate either,
because my hands don't fly into the air when I'm confronted by
a choice between the lesser of two evils.    Yes, I'd probably condone
the torture of a single innocent human if it would save millions
of other humans, but for practical purposes, I still cherish and
support the concept of rights, albeit not in an absolute sense.

Once again, here's the passage that you're alluding to:

=========================================================================
I'd be happy to answer your question after you've defined the term "animal
rights" with sufficient precision that we can compare the "animal rights"
philosophy espoused by Singer or Regan with the "animal rights" philosophy
that was espoused by the nazis.
=========================================================================

Please read it carefully, and try to refrain from engaging in foolish
assumptions.

>... 
>> Perhaps you could spare yourself some additional embarrassment if you'd
>> avoid asking "pertinent" questions that fall into the "least relevant"
>> category, such as whether or not I was in Athens on such-and-such a
>> date.
> 
> You are claiming that you will not answer my questions because they are
> irrelevant.  However, the question that YOU consider MOST irrelevant got
> the most prompt and straightforward answer.  

Not really.

> Why?  If you are a "critical thinker" rather than a willful 
> procrastinator, can't you see the inconsistency here?  

As I've pointed out, my decision to respond to one of your silly
questions doesn't endow your remaining questions with any special
significance.   

Do you understand the concept of a "killfile", Martin?   Usenet users
often use a "killfile" to skip over the postings of posters they
consider illogical or disagreeable.   Would the presence of a man's
name in someone's "killfile" lead us to conclude that his arguments
are irrefutable or compelling.  Probably not.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals