This page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: This is true, but no real information
If you disagree with its speedy deletion, please explain why on its talk page or at Wikipedia:Speedy deletions. If this page obviously does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from articles that you have created yourself.
Administrators, remember to check if anything links here, the page history (last edit) and any revisions of CSD before deleting.
A very funny sketch from Monty Pythons Flying Circus. Monty Pythons Flying Circus (aka Flying Circus or MPFC) was the popular BBC sketch comedy show from Monty Python. ...
Arguments that question the validity of animal experimentation rest on the foundation that there are significant biological differences between humans and other animals.
Their ethical arguments, in addition to being underdeveloped, are speciesist: "it is up to humans to recognize and protect those rights for them, just as we are morally obligated to protect infants, the developmentally disabled and the mentally ill" (NAVS, Ethical).
The fact that scientific arguments can subvert moral arguments to the point where moral arguments are not even made indicates accession to the perceived power of the arguments researchers make and the view that moral arguments alone are inadequate to counter them.
That is, the Theory's argument is rhetorical, with the expectation that clear explanations of extensive evidence are sufficient in and of themselves.
This means, then, that all rhetorical arguments on this score will require intentionally ignoring or shading obvious distinctions, out of context quote mining, or using sophistry to deceive.
Rather, the argument is that if there is no identifiable characteristic preventing what operated on the former from happening on the latter, then there is no a priori reason to exclude the process.
Feeds |
Contact