Posted on 12/05/2006 10:20:22 PM PST by null and void
CATS can suffer from a feline form of Alzheimer's disease, Edinburgh scientists revealed today.
A study into ageing cats identified a key protein which can build up in the nerve cells in their brains and cause mental deterioration, similar to that in humans.
The research was carried out by scientists at the University of Edinburgh, as well as universities at St Andrews, Bristol and California.
Dr Danielle Gunn-Moore, of Edinburgh University, said: "We've known for a long time that cats develop dementia, but this study tells us that the cat's neural system is being compromised."
Clever, very clever!
Wouldn't all animals be subject to this? At least if they get old enough?
Understandable attitude.
But, we are very similar. As someone said, much testing is done on animals, especially initial testing. So they find out an animal has the same problem and same reaction. It's basically incidental.
Lots of things for animals are, conversely, after the fact for humans. My dog is taking a "new" dog drug for her major allergies that has been old hat in humans for ages. All they really did was decide to see if it would work for animals, too.
Actually, this sort of reminds me of a recent Williams or Sowell column.
By extending your logic, we can ask, WHY SPEND MONEY ON ANYTHING AT ALL EXCEPT HUMAN HEALTH RESEARCH?
So you spending money on a TV entertainment system is money taken from helping save a human.
;-)
"You are responding to things I did not say, nor mean."
Sorry, I didn't mean to do that. I was responding to what I thought you said.
"I should have no authority to modify his actions through force, unless his activities affect me."
Do you really mean to abdicate all responsibility for protecting the weak? Shirley you support laws against raping women and child abuse, even though you are neither a woman nor a child.
"I don't claim to know what's best for others, only myself. I can tell them what the Bible says"
If the Bible tells you what's best for you, surely it tells others what's best for them.
"and let them form their own opinion."
We Christians do not believe in forced conversion, and proselytization must have its limits. However, if the opinion they form is contrary to what God has told us, then their opinion is wrong. It is not "their reality" or "their perception" or any other PC crap; it gains no validity simply by virtue of being a sincerely held opinion. It is simply incorrect. Wrong.
"I am libertarian."
At some point you will need to deal with the irreconcilable conflicts between that and Christianity.
"I am against seatbelt, carseat, helmet, anti-smoking and other such laws passed by people who know what is best for us."
I am too, but I am in favor of prohibitions on addictive drugs, hallucinogens, amphetamines, abortion, adultery, cohabitation, divorce, and the abandoning of spouses and children. You breed'em, you feed'em.
Further, I think we should treat Marxism in all its forms, under whatever guise, in the same way that the Germans now treat Nazism.
This explains the cat that I saw driving 25 MPH the wrong way on the Interstate.
"By extending your logic, we can ask..."
No, by *unreasonably* extending his logic to an extreme neither intended nor necessary, you can ask...
This is another misapplication of the reductio ad absurdum.
It's not ridiculous. It is exactly the same principle.
Why are there multi-$$$$$ chocolate companies when their money could be put to feeding and nursing sick children?
Of course, I see this has already been hypothsized in the thread. Don't mean to beat the uh, dead horse. http://home.att.net/~splatt13/deadhorse.gif
"By extending your logic, we can ask..."
No, by *unreasonably* extending his logic to an extreme neither intended nor necessary, you can ask...
This is another misapplication of the reductio ad absurdum.
"So you spending money on a TV entertainment system is money taken from helping save a human."
This form of argumentation is all too common. I wish we'd become more sensitive to and less tolerant of it.
In a world where there is an area of things that are clearly okay, a gray area of hard calls, and an area of things that are clearly not okay, people cite instances that fall into one of the first two groups in an effort to deny the existence of the third group.
Morality does not require that we all take a vow of povery and give everything above mere subsistence to the poor. However, it does require that we be as generous as we are able, given the constraints of living in the world. We will answer to God if we are less generous than we should be.
The guideline has traditionally been the tithe, the tenth part. Some give less. Bill Gates could wipe out AIDS with a tithe properly applied. If I had that much money, I could relegate leftism once again to the lunatic fringe where it belongs, which would be an act of charity.
At some point, each person deals with his own conscience. However, that third category, that category of things that are clearly not okay, stubbornly remains.
"It is exactly the same principle."
Wrongly applied. Logic is like a hammer: you can use it to drive a nail, or to smash your thumb.
>>If the Bible tells you what's best for you, surely it tells others what's best for them.<<
Yes, but having free will, they have the God given right to choose whether or not to play by those rules. If anyone does utterly and completely do just that, they don't need the blood of Christ.
>>Do you really mean to abdicate all responsibility for protecting the weak? Shirley you support laws against raping women and child abuse, even though you are neither a woman nor a child<<
No, I believe in the concept of "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins". I don't see it as protecting the "weak" however. I see it protecting all citizens from those who would do them harm. But if they want to harm themselves, or exercise risk (mountain climbing, bungee jumping, skiing, riding in a car without a seatbelt on, stepping into a bathtub without anti-skid stickers) that is utterly their business. And when I do it, it is utterly mine.
>>I am too, but I am in favor of prohibitions on addictive drugs, hallucinogens, amphetamines, abortion, adultery, cohabitation, divorce, and the abandoning of spouses and children. You breed'em, you feed'em.<<
I do not feel those things fit in the same category.
For example, taking drugs is something you do to yourself. Adultery, divorce, cohabitation and abandoning of spouses and children are something you do with/to someone else.
I am in favor of legalizing the former group, and making the latter illegal.
"Yes, but having free will, they have the God given right to choose whether or not to play by those rules."
No, they have the God-given *freedom* to choose wrongly. A freedom is not the same thing as a right, and there can never be a right to do wrong.
"If anyone does utterly and completely do just that, they don't need the blood of Christ."
That is contrary to the Bible.
"I don't see it as protecting the "weak" however. I see it protecting all citizens from those who would do them harm."
I would prefer to see those who are able protect themselves, rather than to abdicate all right to violence to the state.
"But if they want to harm themselves"
What about those who risk their lives to save the injured? The medical bills of those who can't pay? The children left behind? It is very rare that an act of lethal stupidity affects only the actor.
"For example, taking drugs is something you do to yourself."
I disagree. Firstly, most of the the money paid for drugs goes to fund America's enemies overseas. Secondly, unless you are filthy rich, you're going to have medical bills that the taxpayer has to pick up, and you're going to have to commit crimes to fund your addiction. You're going to break the hearts of those that love you, and the heads of those you mug.
After sodomites, drug addicts bear the largest share of responsibility for the spread of AIDS. After the US Military Services, drug addicts bear the largest share of blame for the spread of Hepatitis C. Of course, there's a lot of bleedover, because young male addicts often prostitute themselves to sodomites for drug money, and spread the diseases they catch to women.
I believe that God decreed the laws of physics as He did to give us clues. They are an analog of the laws of the spiritual. Just as every action has an equal and opposite reaction, every action has consequences and reverberations in the realm of the spiritual. One must really stretch to posit an immoral act that has absolutely no negative consequences to anyone except the actor.
Dunno. I don't think Alzheimer's is a normal part of the aging process. (although I could easily be wrong) If it is a low grade prion disease, it could be acquired by eating infected prey, and predators/scavengers would be more apt to develop the disease than strict vegetarians.
I wonder if a side-by-side comparison of Vishnoy/Jain populations vs neighboring non-vegan or non-vegetarian groups w.r.t. Alzheimer's?
OTHO, predators also have a longer life expectancy than their prey...
>>That is contrary to the Bible.<<
On that point I disagree strongly. It is one of the most basic tenets of Christianity (for me).
>>The medical bills of those who can't pay?<<
That is the camels nose in the tent. That argument can be used to control the minutia of peoples lives. It can be used to force people to wear helmets, or to abolish the activities that "necessitate" such use. The argument can be used to require the use of seatbelts, or abolish private cars in favor of massive public transportation.
I will never consider it to be a legitimate argument.
>>Secondly, unless you are filthy rich, you're going to have medical bills that the taxpayer has to pick up, and you're going to have to commit crimes to fund your addiction.<<
I am against paying for these medical bills in any way shape or form. And the crimes, once committed, are a separate issue.
I haven't touched drugs since the mid 1970's. I think using them is stupid. But I also have an acquainence that is a successful manager at Microsoft that is 49 and still uses his bong. Those that drink alcohol are a greater burden on our society actually.
Maybe we should make that illegal too. Or did we already try that?
"It is very rare that an act of lethal stupidity affects only the actor."
Now YOU are being "extreme". This is a typical liberal view, such as everyone must be forced to wear seat belts because it'll drive up everyone's insurance costs. And/or because if the man dies (allegedly from no seat belt), he has affected his poor children.
Absurd. EVERYTHING affects everything else; you cannot get away from that fact. This is a strawman argument. So if it was truly applied, NOTHING would be legal because everything we do affects, even in trickle-down fashion, everything else in the world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
