|
Post by sweetnessandlight on Nov 26, 2006 8:27:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by veggiewoman on Nov 26, 2006 8:37:46 GMT
I just read it , omg I just bought his book aswell , grrrrr. I was really enjoying it until now. What a W%*k£r .
|
|
|
Post by Tiggerwoos on Nov 26, 2006 10:57:14 GMT
I know........... Had just had the article sent to me. Very very dissapointed.
|
|
|
Post by veggiesosage on Nov 26, 2006 11:19:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Wabbit on Nov 26, 2006 11:20:27 GMT
OMG ! if AR founders fall into this abyss, there will be no one to save us grrrrrr very very disappointing ! I wanted to get his book "animal lieration" now, I don't think i will, it's too contradictory ! "He said last week that he stood by his comments to Aziz, provided the monkeys had been treated as well as possible. " what? ? yea, right,t hey were pocked, tortured, drugged and all that in a very civil & human way, huh ? can i say wtf ? or is that against the rules lol So "just 100 monkeys were used to save 40,000 humans" same here, what is "just" ?? AR isn't about minimzing but stopping, you double faced peter ! no animal should be used at all anymore, it's the 21st century, we all should progress, but if you give the bad example, who'll remain vegan & AR, huh? what inspiration is that ? i better stop here before saying real bad stuff lol gets me agrvated !
|
|
|
Post by vegan6pack on Nov 26, 2006 16:01:28 GMT
OMG ! if AR founders fall into this abyss, there will be no one to save us grrrrrr very very disappointing ! I wanted to get his book "animal lieration" now, I don't think i will, it's too contradictory ! "He said last week that he stood by his comments to Aziz, provided the monkeys had been treated as well as possible. " what? ? yea, right,t hey were pocked, tortured, drugged and all that in a very civil & human way, huh ? can i say wtf ? or is that against the rules lol So "just 100 monkeys were used to save 40,000 humans" same here, what is "just" ?? AR isn't about minimzing but stopping, you double faced peter ! no animal should be used at all anymore, it's the 21st century, we all should progress, but if you give the bad example, who'll remain vegan & AR, huh? what inspiration is that ? i better stop here before saying real bad stuff lol gets me agrvated ! Singer isn't a rightsist and never has been!!!!! Singer theory is of the utilitarian approach and leaves animals open to use if the cost is less than the benifit. "Singer argues that the way in which humans use animals is not justified, because the benefits to humans are negligible compared to the amount of animal suffering they necessarily entail, and because the same benefits can be obtained in ways that do not involve the same degree of suffering."From this it is obvious he is not a rightsist. Tom Regan is a rightsist on the other hand. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights
|
|
|
Post by Wabbit on Nov 26, 2006 19:55:50 GMT
uh oh I see, thankx for clarfying, I had heard Peter's name as an AR but had never checked, now I won't need lol thanx again OMG ! if AR founders fall into this abyss, there will be no one to save us grrrrrr very very disappointing ! I wanted to get his book "animal lieration" now, I don't think i will, it's too contradictory ! "He said last week that he stood by his comments to Aziz, provided the monkeys had been treated as well as possible. " what? ? yea, right,t hey were pocked, tortured, drugged and all that in a very civil & human way, huh ? can i say wtf ? or is that against the rules lol So "just 100 monkeys were used to save 40,000 humans" same here, what is "just" ?? AR isn't about minimzing but stopping, you double faced peter ! no animal should be used at all anymore, it's the 21st century, we all should progress, but if you give the bad example, who'll remain vegan & AR, huh? what inspiration is that ? i better stop here before saying real bad stuff lol gets me agrvated ! Singer isn't a rightsist and never has been!!!!! Singer theory is of the utilitarian approach and leaves animals open to use if the cost is less than the benifit. "Singer argues that the way in which humans use animals is not justified, because the benefits to humans are negligible compared to the amount of animal suffering they necessarily entail, and because the same benefits can be obtained in ways that do not involve the same degree of suffering."From this it is obvious he is not a rightsist. Tom Regan is a rightsist on the other hand. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights
|
|
|
Post by applecrumble on Nov 27, 2006 9:32:37 GMT
I've never had much interest in Singer because he seems to me to be confused. Or does he mean to be confusing and attract controversy, or do the media use him that way? Look at all the media interviews and attention he gets, I actually think that distracts from the real issues, and maybe that is intentional.
|
|
|
Post by applecrumble on Nov 27, 2006 9:53:44 GMT
Now would you say that Singers words actually endorse Aziz's actual work? Would you say Singer is the father of AR? Or that AR has a "bible"?
|
|
|
Post by applecrumble on Nov 27, 2006 9:57:50 GMT
The quotes I posted above are from the article, Aziz talking to Singer.
It is very difficult to prove what Singer asks ie "that there was no other way of discovering this knowledge."
It seems incredibly naive of him to defer to an "expert" who has vested interests.
This seems to be one reason Singer gets so much attention - he is reliable about saying things that are foolish.
|
|
|
Post by applecrumble on Nov 29, 2006 21:37:05 GMT
There was an article in the Observer which Singer didn't like, he's made public his reply:
The Editor
Your story "Animal Guru Gives Tests His Blessing" (Observer, 26/11/06) suggests that my remarks in the BBC2 documentary "Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing" represent a change in my position on animal testing. That impression needs to be corrected.
Neither in my 1975 book Animal Liberation, nor anywhere else, have I ever said that no experiments on animals could ever be justifiable. My position has always been that whether an act is right or wrong depends on its consequences. I do insist, however, that the interests of animals count among those consequences, and that we cannot justify speciesism, which I define as giving less weight to the interests of nonhuman animals than we give to the similar interests of human beings.
In our on-camera discussion, Professor Aziz claimed that experiments he had performed on a small number of monkeys had yielded major benefits for tens of thousands of people suffering from Parkinson's Disease. I replied that if the facts were indeed as he asserted, and there was no other way in which the benefits could have been achieved, such research could be justifiable. Whether the facts are as Professor Aziz claims I shall leave for others to debate.
Professor Aziz is quoted as saying that my remarks are "an encouraging sign." Before he gets too encouraged, he might consider that in Animal Liberation I suggested that a test for whether a proposed experiment on animals is justifiable is whether the experimenter would be prepared to carry out the experiment on human beings at a similar mental level - say, those born with irreversible brain damage. If Professor Aziz is not prepared to say that he would think such experiments justifiable, his willingness to use animals is based on a prejudice against giving their interests the same weight as he gives to the interests of members of our own species.
Whether or not the occasional experiment on animals is defensible, I remain opposed to the institutional practice of using animals in research, because, despite some improvements over the past thirty years, that practice still fails to give equal consideration to the interests of animals. For that reason I oppose putting more resources into building new facilities for animal experimentation. Instead, these funds should go into clinical research involving consenting patients, and into developing other methods of research that do not involve the harmful use of animals.
Sincerely,
Peter Singer
|
|