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."
He immediately assumes that any consideration of the moral dimensions of the issue will lead to attempts to legislate the most extreme and irrational positions. There is no support for such an assumption.
"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."
Firstly, you can't have "at least to me." Either it does or it doesn't.
Secondly, no one has suggested that "all" the money spent on "any" luxury should be spent on helping people. I dealt with that at some length above. Did you not bother to read those notes?
I also dealt with that sort of argumentation: the restating of a position to a ridiculous extreme.
"So, are you now saying that there could be a justification for spending huge sums on animals, as long as charity comes first?"
No. I don't believe there could be any moral justification for a person, however wealthy, to spend -- just to pick a number -- $500,000 per year on a pet dog. I don't want laws to prevent it, but I do encourage contemplation of the moral issues involved.
"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"?"
I'm sorry, I was under the mistaken impression that we were making some slight effort to discuss the issue rationally and reasonably.
You can buy computers for under $500 now, and that is by no stretch of any madman's fevered imagination a "huge" sum.
Like the frog that crashed, I'll get toad...
To use the litter box.
"I'm certain there are a whole bunch at DU..."
Now wonder they're going goofy. Ever seen a hairball on a computer screen?
"I don't see why it is immoral on its face."
Because $50,000 is a sum that could pay for operations or chemotherapy for human beings that would otherwise die, and the delivery of the funds and the medical services is practical. People are more important than animals.
Why does it need to be one or the other? I spend money keeping my cats healthy. I also spend money keeping my daughter healthy.
I've had cats that I suspect had some sort of feline Alzheimers, and they required a great deal of care and attention in their declining years. The care and resources I devoted to them took nothing away from my daughter.
Brain burp prevents me from naming the treatment!
Thanks!
Is it immoral to spend $50,000 on a watch for yourself, when the same sum will pay for operations or chemotherapy for a human being, and a perfectly good timepiece can be had for, say $500? At least paying for a dog's prosthesis shows caring for a life other than your own. Is it not less selfish than spending thousands for frivolities for oneself?
Dogs don't sue.
Pontiac: "You can not judge another on how much he spends on his pet compared to how much he gives to charity."
You: "Au contraire, mon frere. Such judgements are an absolute, inescapable moral duty imposed on us by God."
RobRoy: "Or video games, or cars, or bicycles."
You: "Video games and bicycles don't require huge sums. Some cars do, but I'm not sure what the moral calculus is."
RobRoy: "Fact is, as stupid as I think spending money on pets is, how other poeple choose to spend their disposable income is not my business."
You: "It may not be your business, but that doesn't mean that it's moral, or even morally neutral.
Your later comment: "A $5,000 operation: hard call, lots of things to think about." and "A $50,000 prosthesis for a dog that lost a leg: clearly immoral."
Socal Pubbie: "I don't see why it is immoral on its face."
You: "Because $50,000 is a sum that could pay for operations or chemotherapy for human beings that would otherwise die, and the delivery of the funds and the medical services is practical. People are more important than animals."
Alrighty then.
It seems that when it comes to pets, the boundary between moral and immoral is in the neighborhood of $5,000. Good to know that.
Some luxury cars of course cost way more than that beyond basic transportation, but there we're not sure what the moral calculus is.
Judging people by what they spend on their pets vs on charity is an absolute, inescapable moral duty imposed on us by God.
It is apparently not an absolute, inescapable moral duty imposed by God to judge people by what they spend on their cars vs on charity.
Since all of us here on FR aspire to lead moral lives, could you give us your a list of all types of discretionary expenditures beyond basic survival needs and their applicable moral/immoral dollar boundaries? OK if some of the boundaries are a range - we can work wih that. Please annotate each item as to whether the inescapable moral duty to judge people by what they spend on it is applicable to that item.
Thanks so much!
>>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.<<
Then you must have missunderstood me. What I was saying is that nobody is perfect, and only perfect people do not need the blood of Christ. We all sin. All of us.
When I said it was one of the most basic for me, I meant that I see it as one of the most basic. Others may see other things as more basic for them.
>>However, it is a fact that you will then be faced with refusing medical care to people who will die if not treated. <<
I'm not a doctor.
>>I think that’s a myth. I think drug users do many hundreds of times as much damage as drinkers.<<
I disagree. Drunk drivers kill over 25,000 a year on our highways and that does not count the ones that are only injured, putting strong pressure on the medical community, the insurance community and the legal community. Drug users simply pale in comparison. And they would even if it were legal.
It's still a bad thing. And that is only my opinion of course.
"Since 1998"
Seems you believe you are making some kind of point.
Seems leftist thinking has been around since 1998 and perhaps a tad before that too. As have you.
Let me rephrase my statement in a more conservative fashion for you..nobody needs to justify to you what they spend money on.
FYI dsc....I'm not a part of some government entity so the comment about leftists spending habits and lack of accountability if way out in left field.
As for the remainder of your condescending post....
"If there are children in the world not receiving medical care, how can one justify spending huge sums on animals?"
Since 1998.
Very likely Hillary would say something just like that.
This statement really irks me dsc.
Does your brand of "touchy feely" morality carry past children? Or what is the cutoff age for this situational morality? Sell everything you have but the sanctimonious clothes on your back and live what you say you believe.
Send your paycheck to wherever you choose and save the world. That'll happen. Snort, snort!!
Been drinking, Scat? You responded incoherently to the same message twice.
“This statement really irks me dsc.”
So what? Do you imagine that it’s not irksome when a newbie appoints himself thread monitor?
“Seems you believe you are making some kind of point.”
Yeah, that I’ve been here long enough to know whether I’m in the right place, and you haven’t been here long enough to get dry behind the ears.
The remainder of your posts consists solely of errors that have already been dealt with above.
If you hope to benefit from being at FR, you might want to try to keep up.
“It seems that when it comes to pets, the boundary between moral and immoral is in the neighborhood of $5,000. Good to know that.”
No beating around the bush, eh? You’re just going to get right down to the dishonest argumentation, and make no pretense of good faith.
“Judging people by what they spend on their pets vs on charity is an absolute, inescapable moral duty imposed on us by God.”
Reading this kind of dishonesty makes me want to go take a shower. You may think it clever, but any idiot can misrepresent an argument.
“Since all of us here on FR aspire to lead moral lives”
I see no sign of that on your part. You’re not even concerned enough with leading a moral life to argue honestly on an Internet discussion forum.
By the way, you should change your screen name. Honesty is an indispensable component of conservatism.
"Then you must have missunderstood me. What I was saying is that nobody is perfect, and only perfect people do not need the blood of Christ."
Sorry, there's just no way I can get that from what you wrote.
"We all sin. All of us."
Yes.
"I'm not a doctor."
No, but you're a voter, and that's who would make the decision.
"I disagree. Drunk drivers kill over 25,000 a year on our highways"
Actually, those statistics are cooked. The number of people killed by *drivers* who are *actually* drunk, where the accident is caused by the drunk driver, is much smaller.
The alcohol nazis inflate the numbers by including, say, accidents where a person had a couple of beers, is waiting at a red light, and is rear ended by a sober person.
"Drug users simply pale in comparison. And they would even if it were legal."
We don't have any accurate numbers on accidents caused by people who are on drugs, either. The only thing we can be pretty sure of is that it is hugely under-reported.
"Is it immoral to spend $50,000 on a watch for yourself, when the same sum will pay for operations or chemotherapy for a human being, and a perfectly good timepiece can be had for, say $500?"
Possibly, but not necessarily. A valuable watch is an asset, and there is nothing inherently immoral about asset formation. Without capital, civilization cannot exist.
"At least paying for a dog's prosthesis shows caring for a life other than your own. Is it not less selfish than spending thousands for frivolities for oneself?"
No. All life is not equal. Human life is infinitely more valuable than any other life. Further, the money spent on an expensive watch is not gone; it has just been converted to another form.
Proof that you are a sanctimonious, pompous, pretentious, pitiful, disingenuous, manipulating, inconsistent twit.
Look back in this thread. These are your statements.
Anytime someone points out your errors and inconsistencies you accuse them of dishonest argumentation, which is precisely what you yourself are guilty of.
It's time you leave decent people on this site alone and don't bother them with your dishonest garbage again.
You should be ashamed. And you won't be, which is why you should be doubly ashamed.
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.