Animal Rights Terrorism - the new Fascism?

Tony Abdo aabdo at SPAMwebtv.net
Tue Jan 23 13:27:27 MST 2001


Lou is right to highlight the 'in the court of law' attitude that
masquerades as science.     Yes, Paddy, I do have a jaundiced attitude
towards what you label as science.     And the reason is, is that most
often your religiously, fanatical 'science', is nothing more than a
gobblygook legalism, parading as the last word judgement against 'common
sense' efforts to be scientific.

A small example of this mentaliity can be found in the piece of baloney
on the benefits of baloney, all courtesy of the ...Institute of Food
Science and Technology.. (the site you gave the list to impress us
with).....

<What are 'junk foods'?
This term has no specific meaning. It is an invented label which some
people have applied to foods of which they disapprove. It has, for
example, been applied indiscriminately to all fast food and all snack
foods. It has also been applied to any food high in fat and/or sugar
(and so in calories) but low in other nutrients. However, there is no
evidence that such foods are other than acceptable as part of a balanced
diet.>

Well thank you, ISFT.      Did your corporate legal staff write this
tidbit of 'science', or was it Paddy?    And this is scientific thinking
at work?     Makes you sick to even ponder it, let alone lap it up whole
hog.

Lou, I believe that what you wrote earlier, concedes way too much......

You wrote....
<Actually, there is no PROOF that such things as PCB's, etc. cause
cancer. There can only be strong circumstantial evidence since science
currently lacks the tool to show how in a given cell cancer can result
from certain kinds of irritants. This is one of the reasons fights over
the links between DU and leukemia, for example, can be so subject to
industry or military red herrings. Obviously nobody can prove that
depleted uranium automatically causes leukemia, etc.

In a court of law there is a demand for proof as opposed to
circumstantial evidence. In the battle for socialism, we are appealing
to a different kind of jury, namely the masses who feel that their lives
are being imperiled by corporations whose "technological breakthroughs"
have more to do with profit rather than human welfare.>

There are PROOFS, Lou.    This court of law mentality that masquerades
as science will argue that there is no DIRECT proof.    But 'strong
circumstantial evidence' involves the use of statistics, which is very
much a real use of real science.

Why should we accept the definition of what science is, from the point
of view of  say ...The Workman's Comp...     Here, an injury is only an
injury, if an individual can prove that he/ she got injury A, as a
direct result of company indiviual action Z.

Net result?    Only back injuries are recognized as injuries by this
workman's comp style, 'science'.     An injury that can only be proven
by statistical circumstantial evidence, will not be allowed.     And of
course, most injuries on the job are NOT back injuries.

Much of the 'science' that Paddy advocates, has the quality of
'scientists' peering into the ocean with microscopes and then
pronouncing that whales do not exist,  because none have been detected
using 'scientific method'.      Bah, humbug, to capitalist 'science'.
It tries to reduce us down to being idiots with 'high tech'.

Tony Abdo














More information about the Marxism mailing list