The "necessary for civilization" argument

[Bodhi]

Do you think, or do you just parrot childish cliches? That you find no need to provide argument for your viewpoint is shallow.

[fimbulwinter]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think, or do you just parrot childish cliches? That you find no need to provide argument for your viewpoint is shallow.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll throw you a bone:

The reason my peers and I don't share your armchair quarterback views on animals is due to the fact that we're the ones who actually understand the issue from both a research and personal perspective, not because we have any vested interest in a grandiose vision of furthering the human race.

I can guarantee you right now that i know more about the issue and have more experience with it. unless there is a ton of animal/medical research being done within competitive chess or nonprofit organization, you have no place interjecting your uninformed opinions on a subject as important as this one.

you wanted to know why i've granted you no leeway thus far? the above is why selfish ideologues like yourself get dealt with as such.

fim

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
many of the arguments made against animal research are based more on emotions than rational analysis.


[/ QUOTE ] Perfect.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't assume that Al was referring to anything specific in the other thread, but in case anybody reads these posts and infers that they apply to the other thread, I don't really see how they do. You kind of left us hanging Al with the comment about rational analyses. What arguments are you referring to?

[West]

"a vested interest in a grandiose vision of furthering the human race" - where'd you get that from?

It's a bit funny that Dr. Al mentioned "arguments based more on emotions than rational analysis" - because you sound a bit emotional and we damn sure aren't getting any rational analysis from you.

[Bodhi]

I can see that you might dislike me, and I can see that you think I'm wrong, but how do you say that I'm selfish? Stick to your profession and make objective assessments of the evidence.

Anyway, God knows the public, and worse yet, the citizenry should keep their uninformed opinions out of science and your profession. What the heck do they know anyway? No matter that their tax dollars fund a great deal of the research. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
I can guarantee you right now that i know more about the issue and have more experience with it. unless there is a ton of animal/medical research being done within competitive chess or nonprofit organization, you have no place interjecting your uninformed opinions on a subject as important as this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't trust that your scientific knowledge and laboratory experience makes you a better judge of ethics. To suggest that I don't know what I'm talking about because I'm an X or involved with whatever group X is plainly an ad hominem fallacy. To say that I oughta shut up and listen to you unquestioningly because you belong to group X is an appeal to authority fallacy.

Do you ever give any arguments? Will you ever, ever reply to what I say and not who I am? The text that you write is a contentless, void of bombast. Do you really wish the thinking public to so obsequious as to be convinced by rhetoric like yours? I sincerely hope not, for your own good, too.

I am ready for your devestating and enlightening explanation that you have prepared in the meantime while trying to bully someone who disagrees with you. Or, what were we talking about again? Was it that I called research on primates an abomination? As I said before, I can't prove that all research on animals is wrong, but I am confident that I can argue persuasively that some of it is wrong (primates are the easiest case). Even I'm not convinced that the practice is categorically wrong... So here's your chance. Surprise me. Tell us something informative about your research. Tell me why the position I take (that a significant portion of animal research is unethical) is so far off the deep-end and so unthinkable. You already know that I won't be dissuaded by fallacious reasoning, so give me a real answer that actually has to do with the content of the issue at hand. I think you're ready for it.

[fimbulwinter]

have you yet noticed that your (west and bodhi) two pet threads have become venues for you to further alienate people from your beliefs and causes?

fim

[Wozza]

[ QUOTE ]
...so give me a real answer that actually has to do with the content of the issue at hand. I think you're ready for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems a reasonable request. C'mon Fim, make the next post cognizant, specific and devoid of bias...

[fimbulwinter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...so give me a real answer that actually has to do with the content of the issue at hand. I think you're ready for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems a reasonable request. C'mon Fim, make the next post cognizant, specific and devoid of bias...

[/ QUOTE ]

I did. the open minds here have failed at every turn to see any viewpoint other than their own. moreover they have shown the shallow ineptitude so often characteristic of people possessing strong viewpoints on subjects with which they have no experience, hence i have ceased to care.

fim

[Bodhi]

No you did not. I haven't heard you state a position on the issue. Enough with the double-speak.

Beating your breast and bragging about how knowledgeable and experienced you are in the ways of science does not count as an answer.

-----------------

I think we've all done everything we could to get a straight answer out of fimbulwinter. I've stated my position, and tried to be clear in explaining my thoughts. The text of the above correspondence needs no further comment.

[Al Schoonmaker]

Quote: many of the arguments made against animal research are based more on emotions than rational analysis.

You replied: "Many, but not all. And it's even more irrational to dismiss all arguments against animal testing with the quip 'they're being emotional.'"

That is the reason that I said, "many." If I thought all the arguments were emotional, I would have said so. There are some valid arguments, and they should not be dismissed.

Regards,

Al