British Heart Foundation Peak District Ride

Nick Kew

In article <1103535305.463778.123840@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"publicenergy" <david.wild@gmail.com> writes:
>
> publicenergy wrote:
>> Has anyone done this ride before? I did it for the first time last
> year

No.

> I just want to do a challenging bike ride and if a charity gets a few
> quid as a by product then that's cool.

I think you just made BHS's point about not thinking.

--
Nick Kew

publicenergy

Nick Kew wrote:
>
> I think you just made BHS's point about not thinking.
>
Of course I care about it and have thought about it, just thought I'd
try and lighten the mood a bit because it was getting heavy. I come to
this group to read about cycling, not to listen to ill-informed
propaganda about animal rights. If anyone has any links to information
that is current and accurate about what the BHF get up to I'll read it
and take note. As it is, the link that was provided was just so
innaccurate and out of date as discussed at length in the previous
posts.

Honestly, if the KKK did a wist drive I wouldn't go just because I like
wist drives

Tony Raven

Nick Kew wrote:
>
> I think you just made BHS's point about not thinking.
>

No, that was BHF's point... or was it BHF2 or BHS? Sorry, I've lost
count of his multiple personalities ;-)

Tony

PS Wonder what happened to BHF1?

Tony Raven

Nick Kew wrote:
>
> I think you just made BHS's point about not thinking.
>

No, that was BHF's point... or was it BHF2 or BHS? Sorry, I've lost
count of his multiple personalities ;-)

Tony

PS Wonder what happened to BHF1?

BHF1

Tony Raven wrote:
> Nick Kew wrote:
>
>>
>> I think you just made BHS's point about not thinking.
>>
>
> No, that was BHF's point... or was it BHF2 or BHS? Sorry, I've lost
> count of his multiple personalities ;-)
>
> Tony
>
> PS Wonder what happened to BHF1?
>

On holiday!

BHF1

Jon Senior wrote:
> BHS wrote:
>
>> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ar...cgi?artid=28716
>
>
> Shows that there is a direct correlation between height and cancer
> mortality rates. Thus research into that area of should be undertaken.
> The shock value of the supposedly pointless research disappears when you
> actually bother to read the paper that you quote. If this is an
> indicator of the relevance of the other points that you made regarding
> the BHF then we can probably dismiss them too.

I'd guess it's widened your knowledge of what the BHF fund, so it is
relevant.

>
>> I agree, that's why I've stated it's a poor website.
>
>
> So. It's a poor website. It is in fact "another page of outdated photos
> and misinformation". It's relevance is minimal to none. Perhaps you
> should consider taking part in the ride in 2005 as penance for your
> accusations here! ;-)
>

:-)


> Jon

Jon Senior

Sonic wrote:
> My nickname was BHF. (I find it hard to believe that would have any
> influence on what you thought I may believe.)

It gave the impression that you might be linked to the site (From the
site's content, it was clear that you weren't linked to the BHF! ;-)).

> Also, you're snipping a
> bit too much to maintain continuity; as you originally stated that I
> knew it was for shock value only, when I had only stated it was a poor
> website. - Forget this bit it's not worth worrying about!

"Is there no end to this pedantry?". In your first post you simply cited
the website with the accompanying line "May have some useful info.".
This was the point at which I believed that you could have added more
information.

But you're right. It's not worth worrying about. ;-)

> If you are genuinely interested and can at least empathsise, I can
> recommended it.

I can usually empathise with most things (Germaine Greer excepted!).
I'll give it a shot if I can get a copy.

> I doubt very much if it was taken glibly. Perhaps you don't yet
> understand or empathsise with her morals?

I don't understand her morals. I see a dichotomy between what she had
professed to believe in the past, and her actions to date. I empathise
with her actions, but I think that she would be foolhardy to dispute
anyone else's right to allow self-interest to take priority over animal
welfare.

> Where did that piece of information come from? Are you saying she's
> violent? - (I do not condone violence.)

She's a highly public, (allegedly) peaceful animal rights protester. She
herself may or may not be violent, but a dangerous proportion of
protesters are. Brian Cass (IIRC), the CEO of Huntingdon Life Sciences
was attacked and beaten outside his home by two men with baseball bats.
Other employees of the company have received death threats, and one
person's car was firebombed while parked in his driveway. The protesters
at the gates used to throw bricks into the compound, damaging cars
parked there and threatening the safety of the workers.

> That is a commonly held fallacy that "animal rights" people believe that
> animals have equal rights, they do not. They have different interests,
> hence different rights. I've never met anyone who'd want animals to have
> the right to vote, for example.

But how would you define those rights? A lot of those protesting are
rightly angered by the attitudes towards animal welfare that were
prevalent in research as late as the 70s. They are seemingly unaware of
the changes in regulation and attitudes that have taken place since then.

Even more OT question: Which idiot decided on the Beagle as a model
animal for canine studies? You break into a lab and have only time to
take one photo for your "Look at the horrible conditions these animals
are kept in" story. You can guarantee that the Beagle will look
downtrodden and miserable. Even if it's as happy as Larry! :-)

Jon

Tony Raven

Sonic wrote:
>
> My nickname was BHF.


Another new personality. How many more personalities do you have in there?


>
> I agree there. Pets are companions, there's no rule in my book that says
> you can't live with another species.
>

Provided the other species is doing so voluntarily otherwise it could be
said to be enslavement.

Tony

Sonic

Tony Raven wrote:
> Sonic wrote:
>
>>
>> My nickname was BHF.
>
>
>
> Another new personality. How many more personalities do you have in there?

Virtually, and to all intents and purposes, limitless.

>
>
>>
>> I agree there. Pets are companions, there's no rule in my book that
>> says you can't live with another species.
>>
>
> Provided the other species is doing so voluntarily otherwise it could be
> said to be enslavement.

Probably most animals have no sense of freedom, as such, so can't be
enslaved. As long as their interest in expressing their normal behavior
is catered for, they are essentially free.

For a *hypothetical* example chickens may be kept in a coop, for their
own protection and probably (I'm not a expert in chickens!) have no
interest in exploring the world outside of their environment, as long as
that environment met their requirements of allowing them to express
their normal behavior.

>
> Tony

Dave Larrington

Jon Senior wrote:

> Even more OT question: Which idiot decided on the Beagle as a model
> animal for canine studies? You break into a lab and have only time to
> take one photo for your "Look at the horrible conditions these animals
> are kept in" story. You can guarantee that the Beagle will look
> downtrodden and miserable. Even if it's as happy as Larry! :-)

Harrumph!

--

Dave "Bah Humbug" Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/

Eiron

Jon Senior wrote:

> Even more OT question: Which idiot decided on the Beagle as a model
> animal for canine studies? You break into a lab and have only time to
> take one photo for your "Look at the horrible conditions these animals
> are kept in" story. You can guarantee that the Beagle will look
> downtrodden and miserable. Even if it's as happy as Larry! :-)

They can also look aloof or disapproving.

--
Eiron.

Sonic

Jon Senior wrote:
> Sonic wrote:
>

>> If you are genuinely interested and can at least empathsise, I can
>> recommended it.
>
>
> I can usually empathise with most things (Germaine Greer excepted!).
> I'll give it a shot if I can get a copy.

Amazon, as linked previously! ;-)

>
>> I doubt very much if it was taken glibly. Perhaps you don't yet
>> understand or empathsise with her morals?
>
>
> I don't understand her morals. I see a dichotomy between what she had
> professed to believe in the past, and her actions to date. I empathise
> with her actions, but I think that she would be foolhardy to dispute
> anyone else's right to allow self-interest to take priority over animal
> welfare.

See below.

>
>> Where did that piece of information come from? Are you saying she's
>> violent? - (I do not condone violence.)
>
>
> She's a highly public, (allegedly) peaceful animal rights protester. She
> herself may or may not be violent,

No evidence there then. - Innocent until proven guilty.


but a dangerous proportion of
> protesters are. Brian Cass (IIRC), the CEO of Huntingdon Life Sciences
> was attacked and beaten outside his home by two men with baseball bats.

A nasty attack some 4 years ago.

> Other employees of the company have received death threats, and one
> person's car was firebombed while parked in his driveway. The protesters
> at the gates used to throw bricks into the compound, damaging cars
> parked there and threatening the safety of the workers.

All bad things, that I think damage their intended cause.

>
>> That is a commonly held fallacy that "animal rights" people believe
>> that animals have equal rights, they do not. They have different
>> interests, hence different rights. I've never met anyone who'd want
>> animals to have the right to vote, for example.
>
>
> But how would you define those rights?

The basic interests are freedom from pain and being killed, these can be
protected by "rights" of welfare laws. There are other interests that
may require protection.

The interesting bit (for me anyway) is when there's a conflict of
interests. - If, as a hypothetical example, my house were being
destroyed by insects, and after exploring alternatives, it came to
killing those insects, to save me and my family from unnecessary risk or
danger, then it may be necessary to kill them.

From what I know today, I've yet to see a case whereby the interest of
the human outweighed the interest of the animal/s being vivisected,
after considering alternatives and the potential use of the new
knowledge, etc.


A lot of those protesting are
> rightly angered by the attitudes towards animal welfare that were
> prevalent in research as late as the 70s. They are seemingly unaware of
> the changes in regulation and attitudes that have taken place since then.

Perhaps all the laboratories should be open to the public.

>
> Even more OT question: Which idiot decided on the Beagle as a model
> animal for canine studies? You break into a lab and have only time to
> take one photo for your "Look at the horrible conditions these animals
> are kept in" story. You can guarantee that the Beagle will look
> downtrodden and miserable. Even if it's as happy as Larry! :-)

True.

(I was going to post a link to a hacked up beagle, but decided against it)

I find the pictures of vivisected primates even worse.


>
> Jon

Tony Raven

Sonic wrote:

> I find the pictures of vivisected primates even worse.
>

Yes, some people do find the OR disquieting.

Tony

Tony Raven

Sonic wrote:
>
> Probably most animals have no sense of freedom, as such, so can't be
> enslaved. As long as their interest in expressing their normal behavior
> is catered for, they are essentially free.
>

You are Aristotle and ICMFP.

Tony

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/bl...isplay.cfm?id=6

The Greek philosopher Aristotle developed a justification for slavery
that would have profound consequences for the future. This was the
notion of the "natural slave." Slaves, in Aristotle's view, lacked the
higher qualities of the soul necessary for freedom. Slavery was not only
good for the master, according to Aristotle, it was also good for
slaves, who received the guidance and discipline they were incapable of
providing themselves.