From: itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Silver Spring monkeys
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:58:06 GMT
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine

In article <C0DD15.8x1@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1993Jan5.050150.1685@samba.oit.unc.edu>, by itsmine@med.unc.edu (Greg Popken):
>> In article <C0Cypv.6qF@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>>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*?
>
>No, I don't know that there are instances in which you would consider
>animal (mis)use to be unethical.   For example, would you say that it's 
>unethical to:
>
>--- kill four dozen mink to make a fur coat for a socialite in Miami?
>--- kill animals for amusement and "sport"?
>--- kill animals for food when non-sentient food sources are both plentiful
>    and far less costly in terms of human resources?

I don't own a mink coat and I don't hunt.  I do feed rodents to my pet
(Oh, let's be PC: companion) Boa.
I do own a number of leather garments. (You should see me in a black
leather teddy.) 
And I eat meat.

I do not set cats on fire, starve lab (or companion) animals or subject
them to unnecessary pain.
  If this were an ideal world I wouldn't use lab
animals at all.  I do not view the use of animals for food or consumer
products as unethical, as long as they are not subject to unnecessary or
inordinate suffering in the process. I see hunting, for nothing more than
the sport of it,  as distastefull. As I find fur coats, vain and distastefull.

I view the abusive, unnecessary, cruel, infliction of pain on animals as
unethical.  

Does that pretty much let you know were I stand?

 >>>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?)
>
>Again, let's go back to James Hoskins query:
[deleted for sake of band wdth.]
I am aware of the post, Russell.  I sleep with it under my pillow, because
it makes me feel closer to you.

>
>I'm sure that Mr. Hoskins wasn't trying to offend you if he
>misquoted you here.  To the contrary, I think he was hoping
>to defend your position.

James niether offended me or misquoted me.
But the post mentions nothing about our discussion of torture and the
ethics involved.Would you please explain to me how this topic is involved
in the present discussion?

 > >As I stated previously, I don't see how your actions can be  
>compared with Pacheco's unless you consider your use of animals 
>to be a "lesser evil".

I have stated in a previous post that I do not like using animals in the lab.
But I view it as a necessity.  Hence the lesser of two "evils", if that's
what you wish to call it.

> Frankly, you've given me the distinct 
>impression that you don't see anything wrong at all with using 
>animals, provided that the uses fit within the normative 
>guidelines established by your prior conventions.  

What's your point, Russell. I could make the same statement about any
number of non-absolutionist AR advocates here.

> I'll leave it 
>to you to make your views known, if you choose to do so.  If you 
>don't wish to, it's fine with me.  

You just woun't ask me, will you?

                                   Huggs and Kisses
                                      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