From: mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu (Martin Hulsey)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Followup-To: talk.politics.animals
Organization: Dept. Foods & Nutrition, Univ. of GA
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:49:19 GMT

In article <BzH901.4nv@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
> 
>[...]
> 
> I'd say that your groundless conjectures about my alleged 
> presence at an AR debate in Athens, Georgia, were an excellent 
> example of sheer stupidity.  If you think those conjectures were 
> damaging to my "point of view", as opposed to your credibility as 
> a "scientist", dream on.

My "conjectures" weren't entirely groundless.  If the gentleman I debated
in Athens was not you, then he must be reading the same set of pamphlets or
otherwise getting his information from the same source.  I was simply
curious as to whether you had ever been to Athens.  If you regard curiosity
and stupidity as synonymous, then that is you right.

I never implied that your presence or absence in Athens had any
implications for our exchange here.  Please do not suggest otherwise.

>If you want to engage in flights of
> fancy, go ahead, but I'm under no obligation to confirm or deny
> your pretentious suppositions.

If my question about your presence in Athens was "sheer stupidity,"  why
did you so quickly offer a straighforward answer?  Why do you continue to
avoid my other questions?  As James suggested, if you consider these
questions to be "stupid," please indicate why.

> It's rather obvious to some of us that you can't seem to 
> distinguish differences of opinion among your net opponents, just 
> as you can't seem to tell the difference between the 
> philosophical views of Regan versus Singer.  [For example, you 
> made the preposterous claim that Singer held "absolutist" views 
> on animal research.]

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.

If I ever made an "absolutist" statement about Singer and animal research,
I was indeed mistaken.  I don't remember doing so, but I trust your
assessment.  As I recall, Singer simply believes that it is "speciesist" to
perform invasive research on non-human animals when we are unwilling to
perform similar experiments on humans.  Is this correct?

The difference between you and me is that I am willing to admit my
mistakes, and concede when my positions are soundly disproven.  You simply
change the subject and move on.

>Perhaps this inability stems from the fact 
> that you employ your ideological theories to conjure up "facts" 
> about your opponents, in lieu of expending the time and energy that 
> might be required to truly understand what your opponents are 
> saying.  As such, it's not surprising that you would envision 
> similarities between myself and anybody else whom you perceive as 
> an animal rights advocate;  to a large degree, all of us are 
> simply the product of your own imagination.

I wish that animal "rights" activists were products of my imagination.  I
would then be able to make them go away.

>As long as you persist
> in telling us what we think, and why we think the way we do, it's not 
> surprising that "we" should all be so similar in your mind.  

I am trying to understand what you think.  I have asked numerous questions
relevant to the debate concerning animal "rights," as well a couple that
were admittedly not relevant.  You continue to make your objections about
the few irrelevant questions an excuse to avoid the majority of relevant
ones.  This is ironic considering that the least relevant question (about
you visiting Athens) was the one for which I received the most prompt and
straightforward answer.

The comment James Hoskins made (and you ignored) about your "debate"
tactics is quite fascinating to me.  Another person suggested to me that
you employ a debating tactic known as "negative spread."  I was unfamiliar
with this term, but the person explained that it involved making a large
number of objections to your opponent's positions.  The person also
explained that it was an effective tactic to employ in time-limited
situations, because there would be insufficient time to rebut the
objections no matter how irrelevant they might be.  Although Usenet
"debates" would not ordinarily be "time-limited," in this case they are. 
Usenet is apparently your occupation, whereas for other participants it is
a hobby.  Do you have any thoughts on these ideas?

I will be offline for about a week, but I will be back to press you
further.  Meanwhile, consider your answers to my remaining questions:

+++++++++++++++++++  Russell's unanswered questions  +++++++++++++++++++++

How would you modify the _status quo_ to simultaneously protect the
interests of human and non-human animals?

Would failing to perform a critical experiment be worse than performing one
that proved trivial?

Do you propose that Christian Scientists refuse medical care because they
believe the information is tainted?

Would you, for some period, allow heart patients to die for their
"stupidity" rather than sacrifice a few pigs or dogs to develop a new heart
valve, etc?

Can you provide evidence that the actions of other species are not
"self-serving?

What do you feel to be the relative intrinsic value of a dog as compared to
a human?

Do you see the importance of John Orem's basic electrophysiological studies
of the neural regulation of sleep?

What if the "alternative" tests fail to detect a hazardous physical
irritant in your toothpaste?  Wouldn't this result in human suffering?

Have you considered the suffering of the mouse or rabbit that is ground up
by the thresher that harvests your wheat?

How do you propose that the Ames test of bacterial mutagenicity can serve
as a test for ocular irritancy?

If a product's raw materials are tested on animals, and, if animal tests
are cruel, how can the resultant product be called "cruelty-free?"

When purchasing cosmetics, should people care more about their eyes than
those of a rabbit?

--
mhulsey@hestia.fcs.uga.edu                      Society for Neuroscience
Martin G. Hulsey                              National Rifle Association
Dept. Foods & Nutrition      Society for the Study of Ingestive Behavior
University of Ga.    North American Association for the Study of Obesity
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals