Longest Thread Ever (Original title was "Like?")

[john]

Ed: you are a saint.

About a week ago I wrote a large response for this thread and never bothered to post it. I don't see the point in trying to make a close-minded individual with an obvious agenda try to understand the situation better and perhaps even dare to consider someone else's point of view...

Back to basics. There are swings and round-abouts ("rotaries" in Americanese) but let's face it, the people on this site are here because they want to learn and talk about the care of their animals. It's the people who aren't on this site trying to learn how to take better care of their animals that Sally needs to worry about.

 

[sally]

"I'm quite unsure if you are for or against keeping salamanders in captivity or if you are just against improper captive care"

Joseph, i've already addressed this in many of my posts.

Dot, of course we share the same genes, but we're obviously very different creatures. If we reacted to everything the same then why do some animals get certin illnesses and others don't? Take Feline leukemia for example...it's called feline leukemia because it only effects cats. It doesn't effect humans, why is that? And this is so with many tests that have been done on animals; medications and diseases effect them very differently, or not at all, and therefore are useless in determining what is safe for humans. So, obviously, even though we share the same genes, our genetic make-up is very different.

John, are you trying to consider my point-of-view, the animals' point-of-view, and the victims of the holocaust's point-of-view? Do you not understand that this debate is no longer about caudates and ripping animals from the wild? That is why i didn't respond to a lot of what has been posted. If you'll review the above posts, you'll see i was trying to avoid a further debate; but i was presented with a question and i will stand by what i believe.

"For with what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you again"

Matthew 5
7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called sons of God.

 

[sally]

For Al.

http://www.bible.com/answers/aanimal.html

Proverbs 15:17
Better is a dinner of herbs, where love is, Than a stalled ox and hatred therewith.

Ecclesiastes 3
18 I said in my heart, It is because of the sons of men, that God may prove them, and that they may see that they themselves are but as beasts.
19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; and man hath no preeminence above the beasts: for all is vanity.
20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
21 Who knoweth the spirit of man, whether it goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast, whether it goeth downward to the earth?
(I believe this is talking about both animals and demons. I think God uses animals to show us how helpless and pathetic we are.)

 

[kim]

'Sally' get the picture we dont care anymore... your boring us...

if only i could jump off a virtual cliff!

SAVE US ALL FROM THIS MADNESS

 

[the]

faith is a powerful thing-it often shuts off the rational mind


it would seem that it is true that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" -especially with this person. any a$$ can make a web page -and it often seems many who have more 'beliefs' than education have the time to produce them. these web pages that claim the 'big lie' of animal testing are proof of this. i am sure the KKK has a web page too and they will claim thier 'truth' in it too (they also throw in religion).

I am not going to tell my identity because I dont want death threats or hate mail from this person. i will say that I do research on animals. i know the system of how these drugs procede from killing cells in flasks to animal testing then to human trials. this is the only way we currently have to try drugs. the alternative is ?? we could test them directly on humans -but we'd have to find large groups that are at the same stages then lock them away so that they cant have other outside influences that would effect the data, and then if the drug did somehow work and didnt kill them and they didnt die in the mean time we could try it again with another set of people-except this would take many years and we still wouldnt know the long term effects. or we could just stop testing all together and let people fend for themselves -let the ill and dieing go it alone-if they survive well then ok, if they die then the gene pool is better off? we could revert back to the time of back alley abortion stye cures, where anyone will try anything because they are so desperate.(break out the voo-doo sticks).

it seems that many stand upon their principals till they turn upon them. you may be against everything you say and perhaps even if your life or your parents or siblings lives were at stake but you would probably rethink it if your own child needed drugs that were developed through this testing process. the world is not black and white,nor is it a measure of gray, it has far too many facits for us to fully comprehend. I was given a grant by a man who had melanoma for my research. 7 years ago he was diagnosed and they removed it then. recently it came back and grew in multiple areas in his body including wrapped around his spinal column, the doctors removed what they could but this process only inflamed the cancer (its a 50/50 operation) and though they gave him a week to live he survived 10 days. he died last month. he was a gentle and caring man, i know his sister in law and i met him at the award ceremony. the research i do is cancer treatment trying out dosages and effectiveness of drugs that work on cell lines in 'tubes'-this will not always work on live animals. many of my mice grow human (not mouse) cancers and we are woking with 'drug cocktails'-this is very risky stuff and i would not put an 8 year old with lukemia through it just to see if it worked. the point of lab testing is that it must be repeatable so that is can be PROVEN effective. and though this all seems to be human centered -alot of these drugs developed also are used on other animals. i know of 1 person who spent $700 a month on cancer treatment for her dog.

by your posts you seem to be about a highschool level mentality and so about that in education. you may yet live long enough to see how narrow your view is. you cannot learn anything by reading only what you agree with -and no matter what you read (especially web pages) you should check the references. i am sure you can read these and agree with what they say if it supports your view -but this is not the same as making an educated dicision. you are not speaking to uneducated people in this forum -many of us are biologists to whom this subject relates. of those that responded ~ad naseum~ to you, there are both animal and human experts trying to give you some balance that you will not even acknowledege as vaild -realise that this an issue.

the quoting of the bible does not help your argument -the bible is faith not science. science has the scientific method and peer review to challenge everything about it. faith is cultural and vairies by and even within religions and convictions and is given alot of personal interpretation and thus is unrelaible-science is universal, across all cultures and all languages. i agree with the others-there is no point here anymore you just seem to want to be 'right' and have the last word. it is very hard to have an educated debate with you because you have already made up your mind and the level of your education on these issues seems to be limited to you belief system and web pages. one symptom of mental maturity is when one can hold 2 opposing viewpoints in their mind and not go crazy. you speak to us as if we didnt know some of these things you point out, we are not ignorant of these matters we know and have chosen our positions. do you not wonder why some normally shy posters have come out of the woodwork to post here?

you are not only insulting our lifestyles, professions, IQ's, beliefs and religions(mine is NOT the same as yours and i dont like having biblical verse thrown in my face to defend a secular arguement) you are also waisting our time.

 

[pin-pin]

Hypocrit: defn. writing over 2000 words but not bothering to register.

Let's close this thread. Ed said he was tired. <strike>of toying with this flamer.</strike>

 

[edward]

One last (possibly) hurrah

snip "Dot, of course we share the same genes, but we're obviously very different creatures. If we reacted to everything the same then why do some animals get certin illnesses and others don't? Take Feline leukemia for example...it's called feline leukemia because it only effects cats. It doesn't effect humans, why is that? And this is so with many tests that have been done on animals; medications and diseases effect them very differently, or not at all, and therefore are useless in determining what is safe for humans. So, obviously, even though we share the same genes, our genetic make-up is very different."

This also is not an entirely true factoid. Many people carry antibodies to diseases that "only" affect other species.
I would be (very) surprised if a portion of the population is not carrying antibodies to FLV.
If we we immune due to the differences in our genes to diseases that normally affect other species then there would be almost no emerging diseases. Ebola, Marsburg, Hanta, and Eastern Equine Encephalitus all would not be considered a major threat for outbreak.
There would not be a new influenza strain (or strains) each year as the strains that infect waterfowl (the major source of influenza strains) could not combine with the strains that infect pigs, horses and/or humans to create new strains that can result in pandemics.
With respect to native wildlife, lions in Africa are under threat due to canine (yes canine) distemper and not feline distemper.
The fact that a disease today commonly affects one species gives no indication of the species or species it could infect tomorrow, next month or next year.
Additionally this does not even take into account parasites which can be aquired from animals. For many of these parasites, they may not be able to complete their life cycle but they can happily infect humans. This is also the same for other species, Toxoplasmosis gondi typically has a rodent-cat life cycle but it readily infects and kills lemurs and kangaroos....

Just some clarification.

Ed

 

[dot]

NOW I've got to respond to that quote towards me and now I've got to re-quote myself, because it's a pet peeve when someone tries to tell me that scientific facts from a college level textbook are wrong.

Here's a statistic taken from my old Psych 101 textbook:

In studies of the human genome, out of three billion bases (Adenine, Guanine, Thymine, Cytosine,) 99.9% of genetic material is common to humans. 1/10th of a percent is responsible for genetic differences.

Its relevance to animal testing:
Humans and mice contain 99% of the same genes.

In addition to what Ed, (who ROCKS, by the way,) said, I'd like to point out that Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine and Thymine are the four "building blocks of life" in reference to DNA. EVERY organism has these. From salamanders to cats to humans. That is the constant.

I apologize for not being clear:
Humans and Mice share 99% of the same genetic make-up.

And much praise goes to the Phantom Poster "The Voice of Reason" for saying everything I wanted to say but couldn't without sarcasm and cursing. And over the past four years, I've spent almost $5000 (and that's after the 50% discount from being an employee at the animal hospital,) on treatments, medications and ultimately, euthanasia for my dog, whom I'd had for 15 years. She wouldn't have lived to be nearly 16 years old if it weren't for medications tested on other animals. By the way, I'm not sure if you realize that many animal medications are medications for animals for just that - because they don't have the same effect on people. You can't give your dog Tylenol, or cats aspirin, because those human medications will destroy their livers. And from the opposite side, Baytril, a popular animal anti-biotic was ruled hazardous to humans by the FDA, but as many others can testify, works for their pets.

And with a final *kick* to the dead horse, you've been adamant that we haven't done any "research" to understand your views. But it's obvious that the people who have degrees have researched both sides of the spectrum without the need for propaganda and Google searches. But hey, I guess I can throw the past three years of college out the window, and others can flush their degrees and PhD's down the toilet just because we didn't go to http://captiveanimals.org

 

[edward]

However some of these (possibly most) of these results were not determined in medical trials. There is insufficient profit for testing the viability of many medications in animals. These results are often based on the results of human testing regimens or through results after trying it with an animal. How else would someone determine that collies should not be given ivermectine as they are sensitive to it. The way this was determined was through more than one vet administering the medication and observing an adverse effect and communicating it to other vets. The same occurs with medications that are not tested in animals but are prescribed because a vet tries it and documents a positive result.

Ed

 

[edward]

Hi John,
I'm not a saint but I guess you can call it balancing my karma as I would be remiss if I didn't repay the patience shown me in my younger idealistic hard headed days. (Not to say that I can't still be stubborn as a mule or idealisitic anymore...)

Ed

 

[sally]

Yeah, this is pretty hilarious that i'm blamed for this thread going on for so long when all any one of you would have to do to end it is ignore it (and that you take offense to others' personal opinions and insights)...

"I am not going to tell my identity because I dont want death threats or hate mail from this person."

More spreading of propaganda. How nice of you to personally accuse me in this way.

"it seems that many stand upon their principals till they turn upon them. you may be against everything you say and perhaps even if your life or your parents or siblings lives were at stake but you would probably rethink it if your own child needed drugs that were developed through this testing process."

"Voice", i know many people who are dying of disease, i myself am rather sick, but the medications have not helped them, and they made me sicker, just so you know. I am not against most drugs because of animal testing, but because of the dangers they present to people. You are right about one thing though, i am wasting my time...it's too bad this thread went on so long, i had thought it ended when i apologized.

And, John, i don't have an agenda, i have nothing against this site or it's members. This is the only thread i've ever posted in and the only thread i will ever post in. I guess i can forget about my question pertaining to outdoor habitats....

Take care everyone...

 

[kim]

Its funny how after so much c*** 'sally' has thrown at us she now says she is ill?

If this is true, i am to believe that the only reason she is moaning at us about animal testing is because the drugs didnt help her?

Well if what i think is ture im sad for 'sally' and sorry she is ill, but there is no need to take it out on us just because you found us through another one of your google searches.

I know that this thread was started about caging animals, but i think that she is a sad and lonely person that may need help and this is the only way she thinks she can get attention.

 

[edward]

I said it before and I'll say it again,
The outside habitat post was worthy of discussion and should be reposted elsewhere.

Ed

 

[dot]

For the millionth time ---

If you wanted to start a discussion about outdoor enclosures for caudates, then that's what you should've focused on when you started this thread, instead of passive-aggressively passing judgement on us for owning pets.

And I quote:
Aren't salamanders and most amphibians endangered (or near so)? They're such beautiful creatures...why would you want to tear them away from their natural habitats to live in a small tank just for your own pleasure? I'm saddened.

I guess it's like caging any animal.

Do any of you build a habitat for them in your yard?

You start the post off by asking us why we'd "tear [our pets] away from their natural habitats to live in a small tank for [our] own pleasure" and saying that it "saddens" you. You follow that up by adding another passive jab at us by saying that you guessed it was like caging any animal.

For those two reasons alone, which you should've known, would have sparked pet owners to respond. To get up on your soapbox and basically question our abilities as pet owners - whether you meant to or not - were we supposed to ignore that? To put it in another way - it'd be like if I questioned your faith in your god. (I say "your" god because I do not share your religious beliefs.)

Yes, you did ask a valid question, but it wasn't asked until after you were done questioning our intentions as pet owners.

Your "apology" wasn't really much of one, to be quite honest. What exactly was it you were apologizing for? You misjudged us, yes, but the time you spent defending yourself and "researching" via Google, could have been spent realizing that this entire forum is dedicated to the proper and utmost care of our pets.

And just so we're clear, I've read both "Animal Revolution" (author's name escapes me,) an Singer's "Animal Liberation," but I also eat meat and know well enough to medicate when I'm hurt or sick. So it's not like I don't understand what's supposedly your side of the arguement. If you're still hellbent on whatever cause you're rooting for, I suggest you pick those books up and read them, so you'd have a little more information about the subject of the use of animals in vivisection, cosmetics/medical testing and slaughterhouses, before posting a bunch of websites you looked up on the fly.

And to address the final portion of your initial post, if all you really wanted to know was about outdoor habitats and you truly had no intentions of berating us for owning pets, then this question should have been asked without the dramatic introduction, or asked in its own thread.

 

[david]

There sure has been a lot of brain cells used/abused here to justify everyone's reasons for what they do and believe to a person that has little or no importance on any of our daily lives. The bottom line for me is I enjoy observing and keeping newts and salamanders. I feel no need to apologize, justify or even explain myself. Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but you know what they say about opinions. This forum is meant to educate people about the caring for of caudates in captivity. All the discussion in the world isn't going to change a "Sally Mander II's" viewpoint, and I doubt any of her arguments (if it is a she) will change any of our beliefs. So what was the point of this exercise? If you don't want to keep animals in captivity Sally Mander II, then don't. For the rest of us who do want to, we'll continue doing what we do. And we can all just agree to disagree. If I feel inclined to debate moral and ethical problems with someone, or get a better grasp on the meaning of life, I'll find a priest or someone who's opinion I care about more then "Sally Manders". With that said, I think I'll save the rest of my brain cells for making descisions about the things I actually can control in this life, like what I'll have for lunch.

 

[the]

dot,
though I only have use of the laboratory handbook for research animal use, which also has an amphibian section btw. I will have to admit I did not read it all but I was tested on its contents and our facility is inspected regularly by a board containing a vet. they stress in the book limited use of the animals and impose the smallest use of life possible to achieve valid results. it is beacuse of this emphasis and a few other tidbits I ran across that I question if vivisection is legal now days? I will say we are a public and privately funded facility and the rule book for strictly private ones is something I have not seen, so it may be acceptable in that one, I dont know, but since public sentiment is so strong against it I do wonder if it has been state/nationally banned since the 80's?

just a side note,.... back in the 1800s when body snatching and murder for bodies and/or parts was common enough that people who could afford it paid to have a person watch a loved ones grave to make sure it wasnt 'liberated' in the night to be sold to eager medical schools, it was also accepted to do vivisection on humans, at least the criminal class. the practice was government sanctioned. the schools could only have 1 per year I believe. the experiments back then were often curiosity based, not medical need based. so in some way we can say "mankind" (an oxymoron btw

) has progressed.

 

[dot]

TVoR,

Thanks for the update. I'm not sure if vivisection is still legally practiced, but since it's mentioned in the books I've read, I thought I'd add it.

 

[sally]

Thank you, David, that's the point i was trying to make. This thread turned into completely useless debates. There's no point in debateing an opinion.

(Yes, i am ill for the time being, but i'm slowly being healed through prayer and fasting.)

 

[john]

I didn't waste much time on this. I read the first post and I read some of Ed's posts. The rest I skimmed. I simply don't have the attention span for it since I've heard it all before.

Thread closed. Sally - keep your word please.

 

[John]

It's now 2008 and I was doing some maintenance in the admin section of the forum software. Turns out this is the most replied-to thread on the forum ever. It's a strange old world.

PS: Please don't re-open the "topic" of discussion - I doubt Sally's around to defend herself any more.