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."
I don't see how OlLine Rebel's point is wrongly applied.
Anytime someone suggests, "All the money we spend on X, where X is any luxury you may name, should, morally, be spent on the sick/children/elderly/minorities" automatically implies a reduction to absurdity. At least to me.
You said in post #10 that, "If there are children in the world not receiving medical care, how can one justify spending huge sums on animals?"
I believe later you went on to (rightfully) clarify that if one donates to charity in some form or another, then that's a separate issue. So, are you now saying that there could be a justification for spending huge sums on animals, as long as charity comes first?
If not, then how can you justify owning a computer, which probably cost a "huge sum", when "there are children in the world not receiving medical care"?
Somehow I dont think the children in impoverished countries are receiving less medical care because somebody's dog is getting more attention....
And personally, I think spending money on a living, breathing animal for its sake is more "moral" than spending money on an huge inorganic entertainment system for myself.
Yet apparently, the latter is acceptable whereas the former is not, if I understand dsc's (or whomever it was) post.
They climb into the litter box and ... do nothing.
So me spending hundreds every month on my allergic dog - who is still often "suffering" to an extent - is bad?
Personally, I don't quite buy that putting down a pet is always less selfish than spending effort and $$$ to keep it alive.
But that's just my view. I can also see the other. I just don't see any of it in absolutes. I don't really judge people harshly no matter what they do, anyway, even if I do now prefer the "effort" instead of the "euthanasia".
Just look at their Liberal owners. It must be contagious.
Perhaps there is a reason for the crazy old cat lady stereotype?
“On that point I disagree strongly. It is one of the most basic tenets of Christianity (for me).”
Sorry, but you can’t have “tenets (for you).” The tenets of Christianity are what they are, and that simply isn’t one of them. You can either accept tenets and agree with Christianity, or reject tenets and disagree with Christianity, but you can’t morph anything into a Christian tenet.
“I will never consider it to be a legitimate argument.”
It is not a legitimate argument in favor of forcing people to wear helmets, or abolishing dangerous activities, or requiring the use of seatbelts, or abolishing private cars in favor of massive public transportation. However, it is a fact that you will then be faced with refusing medical care to people who will die if not treated.
“And the crimes, once committed, are a separate issue.”
No, it is the same issue. People who are not rich and become addicted to heroin, for instance, commit crimes. It is a causal relationship.
“Those that drink alcohol are a greater burden on our society actually.”
I think that’s a myth. I think drug users do many hundreds of times as much damage as drinkers.
“Now YOU are being "extreme".
Nonsense. The truth of my statement, "It is very rare that an act of lethal stupidity affects only the actor," is easily demonstrated.
“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.”
If you’re going to jump into the middle of a thread, would you at least have the courtesy to read what has gone before? This has already been dealt with, and forcing people to repeat themselves is just rude.
“Absurd. EVERYTHING affects everything else”
No, it doesn’t.
“So if it was truly applied, NOTHING would be legal”
Another misapplication of reductio ad absurdum. It is not valid to argue, “It would be terrible if we all acted irrationally, so we must not act at all.”
"Somehow I dont think the children in impoverished countries are receiving less medical care because somebody's dog is getting more attention...."
That isn't even close to the argument I've been making.
It is frightening the degree to which people are now conditioned by PC.
The funny thing is the cost of the medicine to treat these illnesses. My grandfather had both Alzheimer's and congestive heart failure and his meds cost several hundred dollars a month, but my beagle's pills cost twenty cents a day and my other dog's are about twice that.
Yeah. I just can't seem to post a normal thread. *sigh*
And it's probably the exact smae meds. Funny, that...
They need to keep their brains busy. Maybe if they picked up a book.
I think some of them FReep, and I'm certain there are a whole bunch at DU...
LOL. Sometimes these things veer dangerously into the ditch. You've got to be more careful. ;-)
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.