Sunday, July 22, 2012

James Holmes was apparently a vivisector

No surprises here:
James Holmes was rejected for gun-range membership

Originally published: July 22, 2012 2:50 PM
Updated: July 22, 2012 5:07 PM

.... In a resume posted on, Holmes listed himself as an "aspiring scientist" and said he was looking for a job as a laboratory technician.

The resume, first obtained in Holmes' home state of California by The Press-Enterprise in Riverside, paints a picture of a brilliant young man brimming with potential: He worked as a summer intern at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla in 2006 and mapped the neurons of Zebra finches and studied the flight muscles of hummingbirds while an undergraduate at the University of California, Riverside.


Anonymous said...

Are you suggesting that Holmes tortured animals for fun, or are you claiming that there's a link between the legitimate research he conducted on "zebra finches and humming birds" as part of an approved university primed him for mass murder? I think that's a demeaning and offensive argument with no basis in fact.

Rick said...

I think one must be predisposed to harm and kill others in order to pursue a career involving harming and killing. This predisposition is the manifestation of what I've termed "vivisectionists' disease." See my essay here:

Demeaning and offensive? Only to those with the disease and claiming to be normal.

Anonymous said...

Opposing life-saving research is to be predisposed to harming and killing. You seem to have made a career out of it.

I termed the higher empathy shown to a mouse than to a child "animal rights disease". Incidence appears higher among those that have had no children of their own and mistakenly confuse a pet for a child.

Is that your case?

Rick said...

"Opposing life-saving research is to be predisposed to harming and killing." You support "life-saving" research blindly? On prisoners, orphans, the poor, non-consenting people generally? Surely not... so you must then oppose some potentially "life-saving" research, yes?

Only "life-saving"? What about research on non-life threatening maladies, or research on matters having nothing to do with human health? You are against that research if it involves harming animals? It's only the "life-saving" kind you think justifiable?

Who shows "higher empathy ... to a mouse than to a child"? I don't know anyone who does.

Anonymous said...

"You support "life-saving" research blindly?"

Of course not.

But you surely oppose it blindly.