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."
"You are disowning your own statements."
No, I am refusing to own your malign, dishonest misrepresentation of my statements.
"Proof that you are a..."
I began my participation in this thread by noting that people arguing your side of this issue argue like leftists. Gee, I didn't know how right I was.
"Look back in this thread. These are your statements."
You took statements of mine, dishonestly assigned to them meanings that cannot conceivable be taken, and used that as an excuse to behave badly.
"Anytime someone points out your errors"
You didn't point out any errors. You just asserted a hodgepodge of falsehoods and tried to pin them on me.
"It's time you leave decent people on this site alone"
Decent people? You have the gall to prattle about "decent people" after the way you've acted? Amazing.
And "leave people alone?" I sought to discuss the issue with civility. You're the one who has violated all conventions of civilized discourse.
As I said, I set no real judgement upon people for what they do with pets in such cases.
However, I have been through it both ways and I felt more real guilt over the 1 more than the other. Some would say I simply adored the dog more than the cat (maybe I did - probably, since dogs are more useful and she was great), but my cat was wonderful too, another animal that made me proud (I can say that about only 3 animals in my life). The feeling that my dog was just starting to respond to medication when I put her down (a sudden reaction to being left at the vets for a different pain as an old dog, whom she hated) haunts me. Of course, she probably would never have gotten right again. But it still haunts me.
I think pretty much now that I cannot play God but have to do my best to help them stay alive. If God wants them, He'll take them no matter what I do. That's what He did for my cat. It bought me 2 mos total and 1 mo definitely "well" to let him live.
But that's JMO. :-)
You make an interesting point about retained capital vs. "down the toilet".
However, I still need to say...
"Oh good God!"
Anyway, since human life is very valuable, how about the value of a dog or cat to his human? Perhaps keeping that animal going makes that person better mentally and emotionally. It's still not capital (maybe, unless as with a German Shepherd she has saved you $$$$$ by protecting your house and even yourself), I know, but maybe he's making some human's life better?
No, YOU ARE being absurd. Your own statement....
"It is very rare that an act of lethal stupidity affects only the actor"
....backs up EXACTLY what I said!
"EVERYTHING affects everything else"
Then you say "no it doesn't". BS. Technically, every single thing I do affects something else. Your kind of thinking however, threatens to elevate the importance of these intangible domino effects.
I will state the seat-belt thing again. Sorry for not having QUITE enough time to read ALL of what you and everyone else wrote. Deal with it. It's common on forums.
Nanny-staters who worry so much about "safety" posit the idea that insurance costs will go up if not, as a reason to force people to wear seat belts. I.e., you 200 miles from me not wearing your seat belt has a trickle-down effect of costing me money down the road.
Such reasoning is twistedly absurd.
You need professional help. I'm serious.
>>Sorry, there's just no way I can get that from what you wrote. <<
You are right. I went back through our thread. In my original comment I was responding to something someone else said. My bad!
"Anyway, since human life is very valuable, how about the value of a dog or cat to his human? Perhaps keeping that animal going makes that person better mentally and emotionally."
That is not without value, but compared to the value of human life, it is trivial.
"but maybe he's making some human's life better?"
Which is why it's reasonable to spend reasonable sums on pets, providing a person can afford it.
"No, YOU ARE being absurd."
You don't see the difference between my assertion, "Our actions affect those close to us," and your assertion that "EVERYTHING affects everything else?"
"Technically, every single thing I do affects something else."
You don't see the difference between affecting "something" else and affecting "everything" else?
"Your kind of thinking however, threatens to elevate the importance of these intangible domino effects."
I think you meant to say "butterfly effects." Be that as it may, my statement deals not with intangibles, but with the concrete, visible effects behavior has in the immediate vicinity of the actor.
"It's common on forums."
It's not very common on this forum.
"Such reasoning is twistedly absurd."
No, the problem is not with the reasoning. Conservatives agree with the reasoning, but hold that freedom is so important that we should accept the cost. Nanny staters hold that safety is more important than freedom.
"You are twisting your own words."
No, you are saying that they mean things they clearly don't mean, while I am insisting on their clear meaning.
"You need professional help. I'm serious."
It's always the other fellow who has the problem, isn't it?
You are right. It is not a popular opinion. I just spent $750 to save a stray kitty who had sustained wounds in a cat fight. It is MY money to spend as I wish.
"It is merely a difference in amount, not in kind."
The application of any rule must be tempered with reason, and reason tells us that there is a great difference between $500 and $50,000. We must look at the difference between pushing a little old lady into the path of a speeding bus and pushing a little old lady out of the path of a speeding bus, instead of treating both parties as "lady-pushing criminals."
Further, since we are considering a question of morality and not proposing legislation, it's not even necessary to decide where the lines lie. Is $5,000 too much? Or is it $10,000? Since we're not telling people what they must do, we are at liberty to apply our reason.
"you've also expressed your belief that a person has no obligation to tend to the needs of others."
Rather, I have expressed that I do not believe we should have a legal obligation to help others. I do believe that it pleases God when we help others voluntarily, just for His sake, and it displeases Him when we could help but refrain from doing so out of selfishness.
"But what about spending that does not generate any capital? A party, or a lavish gown for his wife, or a worldwide cruise?"
Once again, I am not advocating any legal coercion. At the same time, it saddens me to think of the good that could be done with that money, were the rich person so inclined. Of course, most rich people do some good whether they want to or not, just by keeping the economy ticking along.
"I guess you missed the part I posted about capital formation, and how it benefits all, even the starving third world child."
No, I just accept it as axiomatic, and saw no need to comment.
"...the surgery might advance medical knowledge for humans, the $50,000 goes to the coffers of prosthesis maker...gets invested...fund new materials, or research, which benefits mankind with new human prosthesis, or new drugs, or more efficient farming techniques."
All true. It is an ill wind that blows no good. However, the good things you mention are, IMO, attenuated, in comparison to a direct contribution for the benefit of mankind, which could actually save a life now.
"What I do think is immoral is telling other people how to spend their money."
I think it is immoral to pass laws requiring that people spend their money in a certain way.
We are so PC these days that a person can be brought up Catholic and never even hear that for close to two millennia "rebuking sinners" was one of the seven spiritual acts of mercy.
In other words, it is immoral to use force, but not persuasion.
"We all do it from time to time, myself included, but we're all better off when we let capitalism take its course."
We're better off with the maximum level of freedom, but to use that freedom responsibly we must develop a properly informed conscience. This requires study and the interplay of ideas with our fellows. That, in turn, will eventually require us to tell someone "What you're doing is wrong."
It's true. Me sitting here writing to you right now is having an effect not just on me and you, but on other things.
It may be negligible, but it does have an effect.
So, if it has an effect, undoubtedly including bad as well as good, we should ban us writing on this forum.
I don't know what "butterfly effects" are; never heard of that. Domino effect is from tripping 1 domino which knocks down another then another then another, and in the world-record domino-fall set-up the last domino can be very far away.
And BTW, yes, not reading 100+ posts including 5000-word posts DOES happen alot on this forum.
No it is not your money /sarc
Someone on this thread will be here to correct your thoughts soon enough and advise you as to the $ / vs morality threshold is. LOL!!
"No dsc......they have not been "dealt" with in any way"
Actually, they have. Sorry you either didn't read it or read it and didn't get it.
"and gee dsc, where exactly are the errors in anything I posted?"
In your every sentence. You have completely misunderstood the arguments advanced.
I'm glad you agree that we don't need to address each other further. People who wax abusive without even bothering to understand what a person is saying are a waste of time.
I asked dsc in my post 151 above for a list of discretionary spending items with associated morality limits and judging requirements imposed by God. Still waiting for the all-knowing to favor us with that information. All we know so far is that paying big bucks for a pet's prosthesis is immoral, for a luxury car it's somewhat iffy, for a Rolex it's moral.
We need guidance. Next year I'm probably going to spend close to $50K to re-landscape our backyard. I've got to know whether that's moral or whether I'm required to send the money to St. Jude's instead.
LOL! Thank you for the heads up. I shall be ready.
"I asked dsc in my post 151 above for a list of discretionary spending items with associated morality limits and judging requirements imposed by God."
Which, of course, was a dishonest thing to do.
"All we know so far is that paying big bucks for a pet's prosthesis is immoral, for a luxury car it's somewhat iffy, for a Rolex it's moral."
Did you really misunderstand everything so badly, or are you still being dishonest?
"Next year I'm probably going to spend close to $50K to re-landscape our backyard."
Aha, a bit of disclosure. Mr. SF Non-conservative is not a disinterested party. Now his slurs and refusal to face the issue are a little more comprehensible. Not justified, just comprehensible.
"I've got to know whether that's moral or whether I'm required to send the money to St. Jude's instead."
If you were discussing the issue rationally instead of spitting venom in all directions like some benzedrene puff adder, a person might point out that in spending this money you are increasing the value of your property and employing other people. He could also say that the amount you already contribute to charity should bear on your decision. He could wonder whether you've prayed about it, and whether you've done a careful examination of your conscience.
Yes, in the course of a rational discussion a person could bring up and consider all kinds of things.
More likely, though, we'll just see you externalize your own uncertainties in the form of attacks on those who are saying unsettling things.
What a nutjob. G'bye!
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.