Who Are You?
October 14, 2008 1:56 PM Subscribe
I am Jack's raging bile duct, but I'm not CutoutDissection.com. Nope, that distinction goes to a woman formerly know as Jennifer Thornburg. I am also not a Nugget.
Some have not been kind.
Maybe you want the play at home game. Previously. Previously. Previously. (you get the idea.)
Warning, PETA heavy links, but MetaFilter loves PETA.
google lists 12,700 results for cutoutdissection (up one after this post).
google lists 12,700 results for cutoutdissection (up one after this post).
I saw this on one of the linkblog sites last night and resisted the temptation to bring it to the blue.
Who says I have poor impulse control?
posted by JaredSeth at 2:04 PM on October 14, 2008 [2 favorites]
Who says I have poor impulse control?
posted by JaredSeth at 2:04 PM on October 14, 2008 [2 favorites]
where does PETA rake in all their cash from to pay for all this stuff?
Tofu smuggling.
posted by jonmc at 2:05 PM on October 14, 2008 [4 favorites]
Tofu smuggling.
posted by jonmc at 2:05 PM on October 14, 2008 [4 favorites]
when the she became uncomfortable dissecting a chicken.
I think that's called Sunday Dinner where I come from.
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 2:06 PM on October 14, 2008 [5 favorites]
I think that's called Sunday Dinner where I come from.
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 2:06 PM on October 14, 2008 [5 favorites]
I AM NOT A NUGGET! I AM A FREE CHICKEN!
( LAUGHTER )
BY BOK-BOK-BOK OR BUK-BUK-BGOCK WE WILL!
posted by boo_radley at 2:10 PM on October 14, 2008 [3 favorites]
( LAUGHTER )
BY BOK-BOK-BOK OR BUK-BUK-BGOCK WE WILL!
posted by boo_radley at 2:10 PM on October 14, 2008 [3 favorites]
We're here! We're odd! Get used to it!
posted by kuujjuarapik at 2:14 PM on October 14, 2008
posted by kuujjuarapik at 2:14 PM on October 14, 2008
Speaking as a MeFite, I like pitas.
With falafel or lamb in them. And some tsatziki.
posted by everichon at 2:15 PM on October 14, 2008
With falafel or lamb in them. And some tsatziki.
posted by everichon at 2:15 PM on October 14, 2008
I agree with what'serface—vivisection is where it's really at!
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:20 PM on October 14, 2008
posted by Atom Eyes at 2:20 PM on October 14, 2008
Remember that crazy-eyed lady who used to stand on St. Marks holding up the sign with a photo of some mangled varmint and chanting "Animal Rights! Sign the puh-tition!" in what was somehow a hysterical monotone? If only th web had existed when she was a child, thousands of pedestrians would've been spared tons of aggravation.
posted by jonmc at 2:27 PM on October 14, 2008
posted by jonmc at 2:27 PM on October 14, 2008
I always wondered where the hell her petition, that was getting signed (mostly not getting signed) for years, went.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 2:31 PM on October 14, 2008
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 2:31 PM on October 14, 2008
KFC.
To tell the truth, I wonder where she went. Probably Creedmore. One time though, I got off the train at Ditmars Blvd, and there was another woman doing the same shtick there. I thought I was being followed.
posted by jonmc at 2:34 PM on October 14, 2008
To tell the truth, I wonder where she went. Probably Creedmore. One time though, I got off the train at Ditmars Blvd, and there was another woman doing the same shtick there. I thought I was being followed.
posted by jonmc at 2:34 PM on October 14, 2008
I dislike PETA for the same reason I dislike fundamentalist Christians. There is no reasoning with them, and any criticizing of their methods makes them that much more unreasonable.
I do however have a strong respect for vegans and vegetarians that don't support their kind of radicalism. Supporting the burning of animal labs or comparing animal treatment to that of Nazi death camps is not a good persuasive tactic.
I don't know. PETA supporters, when I meet them, always remind me of the type of people I think would become suicide bombers or Ellen Jamesians.
posted by Drainage! at 2:43 PM on October 14, 2008 [8 favorites]
I do however have a strong respect for vegans and vegetarians that don't support their kind of radicalism. Supporting the burning of animal labs or comparing animal treatment to that of Nazi death camps is not a good persuasive tactic.
I don't know. PETA supporters, when I meet them, always remind me of the type of people I think would become suicide bombers or Ellen Jamesians.
posted by Drainage! at 2:43 PM on October 14, 2008 [8 favorites]
Why is, if it is, dissection necessary?
I mean - I don’t see that question...
posted by Smedleyman at 2:46 PM on October 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
I mean - I don’t see that question...
posted by Smedleyman at 2:46 PM on October 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
I will never click on links in a post that are both deliberately cryptic AND mention PETA. And I know I'm not alone here.
posted by tkchrist at 2:46 PM on October 14, 2008
posted by tkchrist at 2:46 PM on October 14, 2008
If you didn't get the chance many of us had is school to dissect an animal, It's not too late. (These links contain potentially disturbing color photos animal specimens for sale.) I like the happy cartoon pig biology teacher in the second link.
posted by longsleeves at 2:53 PM on October 14, 2008
posted by longsleeves at 2:53 PM on October 14, 2008
I was really hoping cutoutdissection was a paper craft site.
posted by doctor_negative at 3:02 PM on October 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by doctor_negative at 3:02 PM on October 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
where does PETA rake in all their cash from to pay for all this stuff?
Puppy killing is quite a lucrative business, obviously.
posted by Sys Rq at 3:06 PM on October 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
Puppy killing is quite a lucrative business, obviously.
posted by Sys Rq at 3:06 PM on October 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
I guess iamstrangelookingandcantgetadate.com was taken
posted by shockingbluamp at 3:08 PM on October 14, 2008
posted by shockingbluamp at 3:08 PM on October 14, 2008
I had the option of doing a frog dissection on a real frog or on the computer back in high school.
I chose the computer.
Not because of any moral objections, but because I didn't trust my lab partners not to like, cut the frog's eyeballs for the hell of it and I wanted a good grade on the assignment. I could see that dead frog standing between me and getting on the High Honor's list again and I wanted nothing to do with it.
Good thing, too. We had to do the computer dissection at least three times to get it right and I don't think there would have been enough frogs.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 3:22 PM on October 14, 2008 [2 favorites]
I chose the computer.
Not because of any moral objections, but because I didn't trust my lab partners not to like, cut the frog's eyeballs for the hell of it and I wanted a good grade on the assignment. I could see that dead frog standing between me and getting on the High Honor's list again and I wanted nothing to do with it.
Good thing, too. We had to do the computer dissection at least three times to get it right and I don't think there would have been enough frogs.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 3:22 PM on October 14, 2008 [2 favorites]
Huh. I always figured animal dissection was the school's way of figuring out who the "most likely to become a psychopath" students were in the class - perhaps they're the ones with a big lazy smile on their face as they slice that baby pig open? But I dunno - maybe it's educational too. Somehow I doubt it.
Teacher, can I have another please?
posted by Salvor Hardin at 3:22 PM on October 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
Teacher, can I have another please?
posted by Salvor Hardin at 3:22 PM on October 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
I don't think there would have been enough frogs.
Lousy French restaurants!
posted by jonmc at 3:24 PM on October 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
Lousy French restaurants!
posted by jonmc at 3:24 PM on October 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
I think PETA could achieve a lot of the same things without the tactics they use -- and probably achieve them better. As a vegan, I am much happier supporting groups like Compassion Over Killing and Vegan Outreach. There is a little bit of the "look at the terrible conditions animals live/die in" from both, but it's not the focus.
I think you can win some people over by shocking or horrifying them, but mostly, I just think that makes people angry and turns them away from what you're actually trying to tell them about. Things like this may make good "news of the weird" stories but don't do much to change minds. It just reinforces the whole "animal rights people are wacky and out of touch" mindset most people have.
I, of course, as a young vegetarian in the 7th grade, got mad at my lab partners' revulsion (in that "we're girls and ewww, gross!" kind of way) at the frog we had to dissect and just said "I'll do it" and took the whole thing over In the 10th grade, budget cuts meant our fetal pig dissection happened on the computer. Which suited me just fine because that meant I didn't have to fight the battle of trying to say no.
posted by darksong at 3:32 PM on October 14, 2008 [2 favorites]
I think you can win some people over by shocking or horrifying them, but mostly, I just think that makes people angry and turns them away from what you're actually trying to tell them about. Things like this may make good "news of the weird" stories but don't do much to change minds. It just reinforces the whole "animal rights people are wacky and out of touch" mindset most people have.
I, of course, as a young vegetarian in the 7th grade, got mad at my lab partners' revulsion (in that "we're girls and ewww, gross!" kind of way) at the frog we had to dissect and just said "I'll do it" and took the whole thing over In the 10th grade, budget cuts meant our fetal pig dissection happened on the computer. Which suited me just fine because that meant I didn't have to fight the battle of trying to say no.
posted by darksong at 3:32 PM on October 14, 2008 [2 favorites]
Interesting that this is still an issue. I remember it being a point of controversy when I was in high school, and that wasn't exactly yesterday.
I remember being slightly relieved when they eliminated, after some phone calls from parents, the fetal pig dissection and instead settled on crayfish, which nobody seemed to object to.
Given the very basic nature of the bio class I don't think there was anything being taught that couldn't be shown on a crayfish. I can't imagine even PETA getting too worked up over them (although I expect they'd try, but really, can you get the same outrage going?).
I'd really question anyone who suggested dissecting domestic animals (particularly dogs or cats), outside of veterinary schools where it's clearly a necessity. That just seems to be asking for problems, not to mention a lot of unnecessary emotional scarring to students and probably turning a few of them into future PETA suicide bombers or something. It just reeks of gratuitousness.
posted by Kadin2048 at 3:35 PM on October 14, 2008
I remember being slightly relieved when they eliminated, after some phone calls from parents, the fetal pig dissection and instead settled on crayfish, which nobody seemed to object to.
Given the very basic nature of the bio class I don't think there was anything being taught that couldn't be shown on a crayfish. I can't imagine even PETA getting too worked up over them (although I expect they'd try, but really, can you get the same outrage going?).
I'd really question anyone who suggested dissecting domestic animals (particularly dogs or cats), outside of veterinary schools where it's clearly a necessity. That just seems to be asking for problems, not to mention a lot of unnecessary emotional scarring to students and probably turning a few of them into future PETA suicide bombers or something. It just reeks of gratuitousness.
posted by Kadin2048 at 3:35 PM on October 14, 2008
You know - I'm all for jumping on the hoohaaPetapeople bandwagon most of the time. Their cause, when compared to things like SOAWatch or Amnesty International always struck me as kind of a giant waste of resources. I love my pets and I think people who are cruel to animals are shitty people and deserve to be brought to justice, but I often wish that I could channel peta's rage into more productive outlets.
However, I just watched the video about dissection and I'm now completely converted. That's absolutely revolting and unnecessary - especially now that we have computer software and reusable biological models that achieve the same goal. Those cats and dogs are really made to suffer and die for something that seems quite pointless, stupid, and driven entirely by corporate profits. In the end, nobody even gets fed. Furthermore, you could teach kids something about computer simulation in the medical field by using the alternative software - and as an added bonus you could bring in a real, live, healthy animal so they could see the stuff on the computer screen functioning in a living organism.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 3:44 PM on October 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
However, I just watched the video about dissection and I'm now completely converted. That's absolutely revolting and unnecessary - especially now that we have computer software and reusable biological models that achieve the same goal. Those cats and dogs are really made to suffer and die for something that seems quite pointless, stupid, and driven entirely by corporate profits. In the end, nobody even gets fed. Furthermore, you could teach kids something about computer simulation in the medical field by using the alternative software - and as an added bonus you could bring in a real, live, healthy animal so they could see the stuff on the computer screen functioning in a living organism.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 3:44 PM on October 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
shockingblueamp: "I guess iamstrangelookingandcantgetadate.com was taken"
You are an ass.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 3:46 PM on October 14, 2008 [4 favorites]
You are an ass.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 3:46 PM on October 14, 2008 [4 favorites]
especially now that we have computer software and reusable biological models that achieve the same goal
As someone who writes software for a living, I am against using software as a substitute for real life. Would you suggest that showing videos of black people to white kids would be a good substitute for desegregation? The software is only marginally better than reading a book with photos of a dissection and is a lot more expensive.
If you think animal dissection is cruel and unusual, fine. But a computer simulation is a poor substitute.
posted by GuyZero at 3:52 PM on October 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
As someone who writes software for a living, I am against using software as a substitute for real life. Would you suggest that showing videos of black people to white kids would be a good substitute for desegregation? The software is only marginally better than reading a book with photos of a dissection and is a lot more expensive.
If you think animal dissection is cruel and unusual, fine. But a computer simulation is a poor substitute.
posted by GuyZero at 3:52 PM on October 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
oddly, although I've eaten frog, it wasn't at a French place but a Vietnamese one. I also had eel for the first time the same night.
posted by jonmc at 3:52 PM on October 14, 2008
posted by jonmc at 3:52 PM on October 14, 2008
tkchrist: "I will never click on links in a post that are both deliberately cryptic AND mention PETA. And I know I'm not alone here."
Yet you will post in a thread you didn't read. Sadly, you're not alone there either.
If you won't click on links in "deliberately cryptic" posts that mention PETA, how did you get in here?
And I don't see what's cryptic about the post at all. If only there were some clues to what it was about, like a link to the 12k google pages discussing the person, or a warning saying it was about PETA stuff, or a batshitcrazy tag, or mentions and links to where similar things have been discussed previously. Hell, I didn't even use any big words, and you do seem to be alone in not getting it. But you're right, I was being obtuse.
Pretty lame call out, and the wrong place for it besides. Gnxr vg gb zrgngnyx, frr vs nalbar nterrf jvgu lbh.
posted by cjorgensen at 3:57 PM on October 14, 2008
Yet you will post in a thread you didn't read. Sadly, you're not alone there either.
If you won't click on links in "deliberately cryptic" posts that mention PETA, how did you get in here?
And I don't see what's cryptic about the post at all. If only there were some clues to what it was about, like a link to the 12k google pages discussing the person, or a warning saying it was about PETA stuff, or a batshitcrazy tag, or mentions and links to where similar things have been discussed previously. Hell, I didn't even use any big words, and you do seem to be alone in not getting it. But you're right, I was being obtuse.
Pretty lame call out, and the wrong place for it besides. Gnxr vg gb zrgngnyx, frr vs nalbar nterrf jvgu lbh.
posted by cjorgensen at 3:57 PM on October 14, 2008
I remember being slightly relieved when they eliminated, after some phone calls from parents, the fetal pig dissection and instead settled on crayfish, which nobody seemed to object to.
This is interesting. I know several 'vegetarians,' who will eat shrimp and the like and they have the same justification-they won't eat anything they couldn't kill with their own hands, and none of them had problems with the idea of killing a shrimp.
I don't know either.
posted by jonmc at 3:59 PM on October 14, 2008
This is interesting. I know several 'vegetarians,' who will eat shrimp and the like and they have the same justification-they won't eat anything they couldn't kill with their own hands, and none of them had problems with the idea of killing a shrimp.
I don't know either.
posted by jonmc at 3:59 PM on October 14, 2008
Dude, can you type in rot13?
posted by GuyZero at 3:59 PM on October 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by GuyZero at 3:59 PM on October 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
You are an ass.
And you didn't even check the other links. "Some have not been kind" linked to a blog that came up with the same thing, and expanded into the notion that this is also a bad idea in the long run (see: job options beyond PETA).
posted by filthy light thief at 3:59 PM on October 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
And you didn't even check the other links. "Some have not been kind" linked to a blog that came up with the same thing, and expanded into the notion that this is also a bad idea in the long run (see: job options beyond PETA).
posted by filthy light thief at 3:59 PM on October 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
I've taught using dissections. I've been a student in several courses where the dissections didn't really add to what I was learning, so in those cases I think it was a waste of specimens. But if you want to teach form and function of major organs, the general layout of major organ systems in vertebrates, variation in a population, and the interplaying elegance and messiness of biological systems, killing something and cutting it open is the only way to do that right. We already have a really big problem in biology with everything being taught in a cartoony way: pretty data, simple figures, successful experiments, models that eliminate all but exactly what you're meant to see. Dissecting a model just adds to that. There are lessons where a model is totally acceptable. But to really help a biology student develop a firm understanding of certain things, you have to show them reality. They have to interact with that reality on their own. Science isn't quite what the textbooks would have you believe, and that's important to get across from early on.
There are many ways to do dissections wrong, even with a great specimen. And a student should always be able to opt out for ethical reasons. But cutting open a dead farm-raised pig or earthworm or whatever is only the first ethical dilemma a biology student is going to have to deal with. A biology major at any 4-year school is going to force any student to figure out their exact stance on the ethics of working with animals. Which is not to say those programs are unethical-- the most passionate and intellectually rigorous animal rights proponents I know conduct research on animals for a living.
It pisses me off when I see someone use specimens they didn't really need to use for a particular lesson, but it baffles me to think that people think dissections are unnecessary as a rule.
posted by Tehanu at 3:59 PM on October 14, 2008 [7 favorites]
There are many ways to do dissections wrong, even with a great specimen. And a student should always be able to opt out for ethical reasons. But cutting open a dead farm-raised pig or earthworm or whatever is only the first ethical dilemma a biology student is going to have to deal with. A biology major at any 4-year school is going to force any student to figure out their exact stance on the ethics of working with animals. Which is not to say those programs are unethical-- the most passionate and intellectually rigorous animal rights proponents I know conduct research on animals for a living.
It pisses me off when I see someone use specimens they didn't really need to use for a particular lesson, but it baffles me to think that people think dissections are unnecessary as a rule.
posted by Tehanu at 3:59 PM on October 14, 2008 [7 favorites]
I will mention that I've directed students to frogguts in the past. It's pretty good as a review after they dissect.
posted by Tehanu at 4:03 PM on October 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by Tehanu at 4:03 PM on October 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
I'd really question anyone who suggested dissecting domestic animals (particularly dogs or cats), outside of veterinary schools where it's clearly a necessity. That just seems to be asking for problems, not to mention a lot of unnecessary emotional scarring to students and probably turning a few of them into future PETA suicide bombers or something. It just reeks of gratuitousness.
I know a few people who did this in AP Biology in high school. I think it did weird them out a bit but I don't think there were lasting effects. One just got her MD.
posted by Tehanu at 4:07 PM on October 14, 2008
I know a few people who did this in AP Biology in high school. I think it did weird them out a bit but I don't think there were lasting effects. One just got her MD.
posted by Tehanu at 4:07 PM on October 14, 2008
My sister-in-law is a pescatarian, because she's caught and gutted fish before. Mind you, she was never much of a carnivore to begin with, but I understand that point of view.
And being a biology student in a 4 year college program is one thing, but cutting open animals in high school, where most classes are not well monitored, I'm not sure how well most of those dissections turn out. Earth worms and crayfish are OK in my book, but going up to fetal pigs and cats seems like a lot of carcasses to throw away, at the end of the day. With the number of squemish kids, I don't know how much more they got out of it than "guts are gross." They might even get more out of a program that lets you put the animal back together, which wouldn't work so well with a real specimen.
posted by filthy light thief at 4:08 PM on October 14, 2008
And being a biology student in a 4 year college program is one thing, but cutting open animals in high school, where most classes are not well monitored, I'm not sure how well most of those dissections turn out. Earth worms and crayfish are OK in my book, but going up to fetal pigs and cats seems like a lot of carcasses to throw away, at the end of the day. With the number of squemish kids, I don't know how much more they got out of it than "guts are gross." They might even get more out of a program that lets you put the animal back together, which wouldn't work so well with a real specimen.
posted by filthy light thief at 4:08 PM on October 14, 2008
Baby_Balrog: "You are an ass." (regarding shockingblueamp's comment: "I guess iamstrangelookingandcantgetadate.com was taken.")
Worse, he stole the joke from my fourth link.
posted by cjorgensen at 4:09 PM on October 14, 2008
Worse, he stole the joke from my fourth link.
posted by cjorgensen at 4:09 PM on October 14, 2008
And being a biology student in a 4 year college program is one thing, but cutting open animals in high school, where most classes are not well monitored, I'm not sure how well most of those dissections turn out. Earth worms and crayfish are OK in my book, but going up to fetal pigs and cats seems like a lot of carcasses to throw away, at the end of the day. With the number of squemish kids, I don't know how much more they got out of it than "guts are gross." They might even get more out of a program that lets you put the animal back together, which wouldn't work so well with a real specimen.
It depends entirely on the instructor. My AP Bio teacher was very good but I don't think we got a lot out of the dissections we did. My friend at another school who dissected the cat learned a lot from dissections because the teacher structured the course differently. High school students can't be lumped together all that easily. Some classes really wouldn't be good for dissections and others are doing work on an equal level with a college course.
posted by Tehanu at 4:14 PM on October 14, 2008
It depends entirely on the instructor. My AP Bio teacher was very good but I don't think we got a lot out of the dissections we did. My friend at another school who dissected the cat learned a lot from dissections because the teacher structured the course differently. High school students can't be lumped together all that easily. Some classes really wouldn't be good for dissections and others are doing work on an equal level with a college course.
posted by Tehanu at 4:14 PM on October 14, 2008
GuyZero: "Dude, can you type in rot13?"
rot13.com
fbeel sbe gur qrenvy.
posted by cjorgensen at 4:16 PM on October 14, 2008
rot13.com
fbeel sbe gur qrenvy.
posted by cjorgensen at 4:16 PM on October 14, 2008
I knew that but I was secretly hoping you had a secondary keyboard mapping set up to touch-type in rot13. I miss the old days when 'rn' had a one-key rot13 decoding function.
posted by GuyZero at 4:20 PM on October 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by GuyZero at 4:20 PM on October 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
When I was in 6th grade, we did this several-day project where we dissected fertilized chicken eggs at various stages of development. Before it started, we had this very serious discussion about conflicting ideas about dissection in science classes and why my teacher considered dissection to be an important part of education.
In the last week, you could see the chicken feti's hearts beating. One boy in my class shouted, "Awesome!" And my teacher very sternly warned him that if he had anymore outbursts, he'd be sent to detention. It seemed so strange to me that the teacher had so emotionally defended dissection, but genuinely angry when a student got excited about the education he was receiving.
And a cynical part of me thinks that people who protest dissection share something with my teacher. Their problem is not with killing animals, but fear of imagined bloodthirsty children.
posted by roll truck roll at 4:53 PM on October 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
In the last week, you could see the chicken feti's hearts beating. One boy in my class shouted, "Awesome!" And my teacher very sternly warned him that if he had anymore outbursts, he'd be sent to detention. It seemed so strange to me that the teacher had so emotionally defended dissection, but genuinely angry when a student got excited about the education he was receiving.
And a cynical part of me thinks that people who protest dissection share something with my teacher. Their problem is not with killing animals, but fear of imagined bloodthirsty children.
posted by roll truck roll at 4:53 PM on October 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
But a computer simulation is a poor substitute.
Not necessarily. Or rather, even if the computer simulation is a poor substitute for a real dissection, the computer simulation might be a fine substitute for the purpose that the dissection is supposed to serve.
Let's not forget that the purpose of a dissection is supposed to be some sort of anatomy lesson; it's not an end in itself. Learning to cut up a dead animal is not, in itself, a skill. (I'd make a joke here about taxidermy but even that is a skill that goes well beyond cutting stuff up.)
The point of a dissection is to learn what's inside an animal, and frankly it's not a really good way to do that, because most students are bad at the mechanics of dissection (and aren't going to get that much better at it, in the few that they'll do in school; which is fine, it's not a really useful skill for most people). I remember doing mine in school and constantly referring to the diagrams to try and figure out what the pulped mass I was supposed to be looking at was.
The computer simulation might be bad as a dissection, but it might be much better than a dissection as a teaching tool.
posted by Kadin2048 at 4:53 PM on October 14, 2008 [2 favorites]
Not necessarily. Or rather, even if the computer simulation is a poor substitute for a real dissection, the computer simulation might be a fine substitute for the purpose that the dissection is supposed to serve.
Let's not forget that the purpose of a dissection is supposed to be some sort of anatomy lesson; it's not an end in itself. Learning to cut up a dead animal is not, in itself, a skill. (I'd make a joke here about taxidermy but even that is a skill that goes well beyond cutting stuff up.)
The point of a dissection is to learn what's inside an animal, and frankly it's not a really good way to do that, because most students are bad at the mechanics of dissection (and aren't going to get that much better at it, in the few that they'll do in school; which is fine, it's not a really useful skill for most people). I remember doing mine in school and constantly referring to the diagrams to try and figure out what the pulped mass I was supposed to be looking at was.
The computer simulation might be bad as a dissection, but it might be much better than a dissection as a teaching tool.
posted by Kadin2048 at 4:53 PM on October 14, 2008 [2 favorites]
I didn't mean to steal. I didn't click the link. Had I of done so, I wouldn't have posted such an obvious comment. If the poor girl ever gets married and hyphens her name...oh my!
CutoutDissection.com-Weather'by Dot Com Chanel Fourcast Sheppard
posted by shockingbluamp at 4:59 PM on October 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
CutoutDissection.com-Weather'by Dot Com Chanel Fourcast Sheppard
posted by shockingbluamp at 4:59 PM on October 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
So, a lot of what happens in high school is sort of a meta-education in my opinion. High-school essays are generally pretty poor. The proofs you do in high school math are reheated discoveries from the 1800's. And yes, there's not much mystery in finding out what's really inside a frog. None of these classes teach you any really practical skills unlike home ec or auto shop. An A+ in AP Biology isn't going to get anyone a job.
The point of the classes is to go through the motions of various real disciplines and see which ones you like so that you can figure out what to do in post-secondary education. Want to do medicine or biology work in the field and eventually do real research? You better figure out if you can manage to cut up a frog. If, like me, you leave math class every day high as a kite, you might want to follow up on that instead. But the actual content of the classes is kind of beside the point. So if you only ever look at pictures of a frog, whether they're in a book or on a screen, you'll never really get an idea if this is something that interests you the same way you would having the real experience.
So yeah, you can learn where a frog's liver is from a book or a computer program, but that, in my mind, isn't really the point. Any PETA member who has the poor luck to have a Caesarean during childbirth probably had a surgeon who got their start with a pretty awesome day in high school when they cut open a frog.
If you don't want to cut up a frog, I respect that, but don't deny someone else the opportunity to do something that may lead towards a passion.
posted by GuyZero at 5:11 PM on October 14, 2008 [3 favorites]
The point of the classes is to go through the motions of various real disciplines and see which ones you like so that you can figure out what to do in post-secondary education. Want to do medicine or biology work in the field and eventually do real research? You better figure out if you can manage to cut up a frog. If, like me, you leave math class every day high as a kite, you might want to follow up on that instead. But the actual content of the classes is kind of beside the point. So if you only ever look at pictures of a frog, whether they're in a book or on a screen, you'll never really get an idea if this is something that interests you the same way you would having the real experience.
So yeah, you can learn where a frog's liver is from a book or a computer program, but that, in my mind, isn't really the point. Any PETA member who has the poor luck to have a Caesarean during childbirth probably had a surgeon who got their start with a pretty awesome day in high school when they cut open a frog.
If you don't want to cut up a frog, I respect that, but don't deny someone else the opportunity to do something that may lead towards a passion.
posted by GuyZero at 5:11 PM on October 14, 2008 [3 favorites]
I never went to a school that did dissections (and I went to a lot of schools!), yet I know how the insides of things look.
We had these crazy things called diagrams.
I don't really understand why kids would even need to learn dissection at all, even simulated on a computer screen. Post-Secondary, you're gonna be a doctor, go scalpel crazy. But in Junior High? What on earth for?
posted by Sys Rq at 5:23 PM on October 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
We had these crazy things called diagrams.
I don't really understand why kids would even need to learn dissection at all, even simulated on a computer screen. Post-Secondary, you're gonna be a doctor, go scalpel crazy. But in Junior High? What on earth for?
posted by Sys Rq at 5:23 PM on October 14, 2008 [1 favorite]
I think we should dissect PETA street team members.
posted by phunniemee at 5:36 PM on October 14, 2008
posted by phunniemee at 5:36 PM on October 14, 2008
I think we should dissect PETA street team members.
Or at least make use of all those perfectly good PETA-rescued puppies before they hit the dumpster. It wouldn't be that much more ethically questionable than fetal stem cells.
posted by Sys Rq at 5:53 PM on October 14, 2008
Or at least make use of all those perfectly good PETA-rescued puppies before they hit the dumpster. It wouldn't be that much more ethically questionable than fetal stem cells.
posted by Sys Rq at 5:53 PM on October 14, 2008
My high school biology teacher had us dissect an earthworm, a clam, a perch, a shark, a frog, a fetal pig and a cat. The only thing I really objected to was the stench of BioPerm.
posted by nanojath at 6:01 PM on October 14, 2008
posted by nanojath at 6:01 PM on October 14, 2008
oddly, although I've eaten frog, it wasn't at a French place but a Vietnamese one. I also had eel for the first time the same night.
Pretty good, right?
posted by Divine_Wino at 7:06 PM on October 14, 2008
Pretty good, right?
posted by Divine_Wino at 7:06 PM on October 14, 2008
Delicious. I forgot to mention that I ate both by sticking my head in a fishtank and devouring them alive.
posted by jonmc at 7:27 PM on October 14, 2008
posted by jonmc at 7:27 PM on October 14, 2008
Cutout Dissection.com
So I guess she won't be screaming "Say my name!" during sex, huh?
As to dissection itself, it can be very helpful for gaining an appreciation of biological systems and life in itself. It's pretty amazing how stuff is packed inside us and how it all fits together.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:18 PM on October 14, 2008
So I guess she won't be screaming "Say my name!" during sex, huh?
As to dissection itself, it can be very helpful for gaining an appreciation of biological systems and life in itself. It's pretty amazing how stuff is packed inside us and how it all fits together.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:18 PM on October 14, 2008
In situations like this, do the ends justify the means? Certainly not. But I don't expect most people to internally confront difficult situations such as these. We've become a society of the prepackaged and disposable without a thought to where it all comes from and who has to suffer because of it. People don't want their bubble to be busted. Of course we can't prevent all forms of suffering, but we can't turn a blind eye when situations like these are brought to our face. I don't agree with a lot of PETA's tactics, but to hate on PETA is to divert the attention elsewhere.
posted by MaryDellamorte at 9:50 PM on October 14, 2008
posted by MaryDellamorte at 9:50 PM on October 14, 2008
I live right down the street from the PETA headquarters. I really hope I don't run into this girl. She's perfectly entitled to do whatever she likes but PETA members seem to have the same brick wall mentality that fundamentalist Christians do. And now she gets to throw those bricks at anyone who asks her name.
posted by hallowdmachine at 6:28 AM on October 15, 2008
posted by hallowdmachine at 6:28 AM on October 15, 2008
Smedleyman writes "Why is, if it is, dissection necessary?
"I mean - I don’t see that question..."
I'll weigh in on this as someone who's spent plenty of time looking at the insides of animals.
Dissection is necessary in some disciplines because simply knowing what is inside an animal, in an abstract way, cannot adequately prepare a student for understanding just what that something actually looks like. The diagrammatic knowledge that there is such a thing as a spleen, and that it can be found approximately in this position, doesn't necessarily help you actually locate the spleen in an organism. Why, you ask? It's pretty simple. Living organisms are not carbon copies of each other. While members of one class or species generally have the same basic parts in the same general locations, there are quite a lot of variations. Just observing the difference weight makes when comparing two cats, for example, can be eye-opening to students. One skinny cat might have clearly visible abdominal structures, while a fat one might have everything obscured by the immensely enlarged omentum (a pouch-like membranous structure that stores fat in the abdomen). Blood vessels are an entirely different story. Biologically speaking, the body doesn't care where the vessels go so long as the circulation is adequate. Vessels can be re-routed, or take alternate routes, depending on multiple variables during development. In one anatomy class I took as an undergrad, we opened four cats and every single one had major differences in blood flow: the one I worked on had two caudal vena cava (the main vein bringing blood back to the heart from the lower body). Two of nearly everything branching into that vein as well. It was amazing. But back to the spleen: It's pretty big, generally. But you'd be absolutely amazed at the number of students that confuse it with the liver, at first.
When teaching the course we always, always encouraged students to look at more than one specimen - it was the point of the course, after all. We were teaching pre-veterinary and pre-med students. I don't know about you, but I would NEVER feel comfortable bringing my pet kitties (let alone myself or a member of my family) to a medical professional who had trained only on models or simulations. Yes, simulations do exist, but any person that tries to argue we now have the capability to simulate anything that can be learned from an actual animal is just plain wrong. Unless you have seen it first-hand, you can't understand it. Really. Diagrams, photos and models are only helpful to a point.
Another point here. Torturing animals for dissection? Please. Do you know where the cats we used in that class came from? They were collected from shelters. Strays, unwanted, feral, you name it. Not one single cat used in that class was raised to be killed. The use of cats was tough for some students - but we always made it a point to remind them that these cats were going to die anyway, so learning something from them was better than having them die for nothing. The fact that we generate enough excess cats annually to supply dissection labs is more of a concern to me than the fact that some students dissect cats. If PETA really gave a shit about the welfare of the animals, they would be pushing for spaying and neutering, rather than taking the disingenuous "Dissection is torture!" approach. (Both my cats are indoors-only, and both are neutered. If yours are not, you're being irresponsible.) Yes, the PETA video shows some examples of cats raised for dissection - but these animals are NOT used by a lot of institutions. Just as you can choose to buy free-range chicken, dissection labs can choose to buy non-farmed cats. The conditions those animals are raised in, well, they're as bad as cat or puppy mills, and I would never purchase an animal from those sorts of places. Would you?
As for other animals - a lot of them are gathered "accidentally" or as discards and used in research. Organs for example are generally slaughterhouse waste: Pig, sheep, and cow hearts, eyes, and so forth are often used in dissection labs; these bits would otherwise be discarded. Fishery bycatch, euthanized strays, etc. account for a large portion of whole animals used in basic dissection. There are organizations that breed some animals specifically for this sort of work, yes, but these groups tend to be specialized, highly regulated, and often are using animals that are raised for other reasons and would be simply discarded if not used in labs. Mink, for example: once skinned, the carcass can either be dissected or incinerated. (I'm not arguing that mink farms are ethical or humane; I personally think raising them for fur is wrong, and I don't buy fur, but I'd rather see the animal used for something than simply thrown away.) In some cases (such as the amphibians mentioned in the video) farmed animals are raised for dissection because the cost of removal from the wild is too high, either economically or environmentally, to sustain the market. Companies like Ward's and Carolina don't obtain all of their animals in the way shown in the video. It wouldn't be cost-effective, to be cold and economical about it. There's also the worry about good business practices: Large research institutions (think publicly funded universities) will not purchase animals that cannot be proven to have been raised and/or euthanized humanely. There are binding legal reasons for this, and there are nonbinding (but equally important) ethical and public relations reasons for this. The large biosupply companies cannot afford to lose the business of universities. Even if one of these companies doesn't care one way or the other about an animal, they definitely care about their bottom line, and will take steps to ensure that compliance with regulations is maintained as closely as possible.
Another small note, regarding the scare tactics in the video: When you pump formaldehyde into a dead animal, the reaction between the chemical and the tissue causes muscle movement. The PETA video shows "live animals struggling" during the preservative process. I've done this, with rats. We begin by rendering the animal unconscious using an overdose of anesthetic. When the animal is fully unresponsive, step two is opening the chest cavity and pumping all the blood out of the body using a saline solution. This takes 10 to 15 minutes. An animal with an open chest cavity, and no blood in it for 10 to 15 minutes, is as dead as you're going to see. Yet adding formaldehyde often causes muscle contractions. This is not an indication of life. This is formaldehyde-induced release of intracellular calcium stores, causing muscle twitches. Essentially the same process as rigor mortis, in high-speed. This is PETA deliberately trying to fool you. Either that or PETA failing biology. One or the other.
A final statement here, on this type of work in general. I do animal research for a living, and I know first-hand that animal research helps humans (and it helps animals too!). I also know for a fact that animal welfare groups such as the RSPCA, ASPCA and (to a lesser degree) PETA have helped ensure that animals used in research are treated fairly. Why "to a lesser degree"? Legitimacy. You will never see an argument from PETA that animal research has any usefulness. You will never see any video from PETA except for worst case scenarios. Sadly, you will rarely if ever see any action from PETA except for blatant scare tactics and theatrical posturing (such as their apparently unending string of "look, I am naked and love animals" activities). Don't get me wrong - PETA is not a worthless organization in my mind, but I really feel in many ways that the actions they take are either too extreme or too flaky to garner much sympathy. They make it too easy for others to write them off as fruitcakes. However - animal research needs an outside watchdog to keep things balanced. There are IMMENSE pressures from outside biomedical research to eliminate or reduce animal use. This pressure is not just from outside, though. Regulations within institutions - federal, state and local - are designed to ensure that any work using animals is conducted in as ethical a manner as possible, and only when there is a clear benefit to performing such work. Anyone not currently involved in animal work has absolutely no idea how much paperwork is required to fully justify the need to use specific animals for specific reasons. We in the field are not asked to find replacements for animal models - we are REQUIRED to find replacements where possible. Please believe me when I state that I have never met a person conducting animal research that does not genuinely like, care about, and desire to help animals. We in the research community spend a lot of time considering the ethics of our work. Any person - from the custodial level to the top of the institution - has the ability to anonymously speak up if he or she feels an animal is being mistreated, with no fear of repercussions. This isn't just a right - it is an obligation. Groups like the ASPCA understand that animal researchers take this obligation seriously. PETA wants to paint all of us as bloodthirsty savages that torture animals for fun and pleasure. The group will not admit that any benefits are gained from research, and even here they won't admit that without animal research the alternative models they are pushing would never have been developed.
posted by caution live frogs at 7:37 AM on October 15, 2008 [9 favorites]
"I mean - I don’t see that question..."
I'll weigh in on this as someone who's spent plenty of time looking at the insides of animals.
Dissection is necessary in some disciplines because simply knowing what is inside an animal, in an abstract way, cannot adequately prepare a student for understanding just what that something actually looks like. The diagrammatic knowledge that there is such a thing as a spleen, and that it can be found approximately in this position, doesn't necessarily help you actually locate the spleen in an organism. Why, you ask? It's pretty simple. Living organisms are not carbon copies of each other. While members of one class or species generally have the same basic parts in the same general locations, there are quite a lot of variations. Just observing the difference weight makes when comparing two cats, for example, can be eye-opening to students. One skinny cat might have clearly visible abdominal structures, while a fat one might have everything obscured by the immensely enlarged omentum (a pouch-like membranous structure that stores fat in the abdomen). Blood vessels are an entirely different story. Biologically speaking, the body doesn't care where the vessels go so long as the circulation is adequate. Vessels can be re-routed, or take alternate routes, depending on multiple variables during development. In one anatomy class I took as an undergrad, we opened four cats and every single one had major differences in blood flow: the one I worked on had two caudal vena cava (the main vein bringing blood back to the heart from the lower body). Two of nearly everything branching into that vein as well. It was amazing. But back to the spleen: It's pretty big, generally. But you'd be absolutely amazed at the number of students that confuse it with the liver, at first.
When teaching the course we always, always encouraged students to look at more than one specimen - it was the point of the course, after all. We were teaching pre-veterinary and pre-med students. I don't know about you, but I would NEVER feel comfortable bringing my pet kitties (let alone myself or a member of my family) to a medical professional who had trained only on models or simulations. Yes, simulations do exist, but any person that tries to argue we now have the capability to simulate anything that can be learned from an actual animal is just plain wrong. Unless you have seen it first-hand, you can't understand it. Really. Diagrams, photos and models are only helpful to a point.
Another point here. Torturing animals for dissection? Please. Do you know where the cats we used in that class came from? They were collected from shelters. Strays, unwanted, feral, you name it. Not one single cat used in that class was raised to be killed. The use of cats was tough for some students - but we always made it a point to remind them that these cats were going to die anyway, so learning something from them was better than having them die for nothing. The fact that we generate enough excess cats annually to supply dissection labs is more of a concern to me than the fact that some students dissect cats. If PETA really gave a shit about the welfare of the animals, they would be pushing for spaying and neutering, rather than taking the disingenuous "Dissection is torture!" approach. (Both my cats are indoors-only, and both are neutered. If yours are not, you're being irresponsible.) Yes, the PETA video shows some examples of cats raised for dissection - but these animals are NOT used by a lot of institutions. Just as you can choose to buy free-range chicken, dissection labs can choose to buy non-farmed cats. The conditions those animals are raised in, well, they're as bad as cat or puppy mills, and I would never purchase an animal from those sorts of places. Would you?
As for other animals - a lot of them are gathered "accidentally" or as discards and used in research. Organs for example are generally slaughterhouse waste: Pig, sheep, and cow hearts, eyes, and so forth are often used in dissection labs; these bits would otherwise be discarded. Fishery bycatch, euthanized strays, etc. account for a large portion of whole animals used in basic dissection. There are organizations that breed some animals specifically for this sort of work, yes, but these groups tend to be specialized, highly regulated, and often are using animals that are raised for other reasons and would be simply discarded if not used in labs. Mink, for example: once skinned, the carcass can either be dissected or incinerated. (I'm not arguing that mink farms are ethical or humane; I personally think raising them for fur is wrong, and I don't buy fur, but I'd rather see the animal used for something than simply thrown away.) In some cases (such as the amphibians mentioned in the video) farmed animals are raised for dissection because the cost of removal from the wild is too high, either economically or environmentally, to sustain the market. Companies like Ward's and Carolina don't obtain all of their animals in the way shown in the video. It wouldn't be cost-effective, to be cold and economical about it. There's also the worry about good business practices: Large research institutions (think publicly funded universities) will not purchase animals that cannot be proven to have been raised and/or euthanized humanely. There are binding legal reasons for this, and there are nonbinding (but equally important) ethical and public relations reasons for this. The large biosupply companies cannot afford to lose the business of universities. Even if one of these companies doesn't care one way or the other about an animal, they definitely care about their bottom line, and will take steps to ensure that compliance with regulations is maintained as closely as possible.
Another small note, regarding the scare tactics in the video: When you pump formaldehyde into a dead animal, the reaction between the chemical and the tissue causes muscle movement. The PETA video shows "live animals struggling" during the preservative process. I've done this, with rats. We begin by rendering the animal unconscious using an overdose of anesthetic. When the animal is fully unresponsive, step two is opening the chest cavity and pumping all the blood out of the body using a saline solution. This takes 10 to 15 minutes. An animal with an open chest cavity, and no blood in it for 10 to 15 minutes, is as dead as you're going to see. Yet adding formaldehyde often causes muscle contractions. This is not an indication of life. This is formaldehyde-induced release of intracellular calcium stores, causing muscle twitches. Essentially the same process as rigor mortis, in high-speed. This is PETA deliberately trying to fool you. Either that or PETA failing biology. One or the other.
A final statement here, on this type of work in general. I do animal research for a living, and I know first-hand that animal research helps humans (and it helps animals too!). I also know for a fact that animal welfare groups such as the RSPCA, ASPCA and (to a lesser degree) PETA have helped ensure that animals used in research are treated fairly. Why "to a lesser degree"? Legitimacy. You will never see an argument from PETA that animal research has any usefulness. You will never see any video from PETA except for worst case scenarios. Sadly, you will rarely if ever see any action from PETA except for blatant scare tactics and theatrical posturing (such as their apparently unending string of "look, I am naked and love animals" activities). Don't get me wrong - PETA is not a worthless organization in my mind, but I really feel in many ways that the actions they take are either too extreme or too flaky to garner much sympathy. They make it too easy for others to write them off as fruitcakes. However - animal research needs an outside watchdog to keep things balanced. There are IMMENSE pressures from outside biomedical research to eliminate or reduce animal use. This pressure is not just from outside, though. Regulations within institutions - federal, state and local - are designed to ensure that any work using animals is conducted in as ethical a manner as possible, and only when there is a clear benefit to performing such work. Anyone not currently involved in animal work has absolutely no idea how much paperwork is required to fully justify the need to use specific animals for specific reasons. We in the field are not asked to find replacements for animal models - we are REQUIRED to find replacements where possible. Please believe me when I state that I have never met a person conducting animal research that does not genuinely like, care about, and desire to help animals. We in the research community spend a lot of time considering the ethics of our work. Any person - from the custodial level to the top of the institution - has the ability to anonymously speak up if he or she feels an animal is being mistreated, with no fear of repercussions. This isn't just a right - it is an obligation. Groups like the ASPCA understand that animal researchers take this obligation seriously. PETA wants to paint all of us as bloodthirsty savages that torture animals for fun and pleasure. The group will not admit that any benefits are gained from research, and even here they won't admit that without animal research the alternative models they are pushing would never have been developed.
posted by caution live frogs at 7:37 AM on October 15, 2008 [9 favorites]
caution live frogs, the only thing I would add to your excellent summary is that the rules and guidelines for invertebrates are still behind or nonexistent at a lot of places. But I think they're catching up nowadays and most people I know working with them foresee stricter rules in the near future.
I'll also add that sticking your fingers in a cow heart may sound grotesque at first, but it's way better than a 2-dimensional paper diagram of a mammalian heart if you want to really understand the form and function of a 4-chamber heart. You can stick your finger into each chamber and feel where the blood flows in and out. Diagrams do not do these kinds of things justice. Being able to actually see and feel how the 4 chambers relate to one another in space is very important and really requires a real heart or an exceptionally good model. And, again, models oversimplify by their very nature. Hearts vary, and I've yet to see a model where you can feel how strong the muscles in the left ventricle are. You can show the thickness in diagrams or in models and explain what it means, but you can feel that strength in the real thing.
The first thing you notice upon looking at the real heart, after learning all the chambers and blood flow directions from diagrams, is how damn confusing it is to connect that diagram with the real thing right in front of you. Diagrams can only get you so far.
posted by Tehanu at 7:55 AM on October 15, 2008
I'll also add that sticking your fingers in a cow heart may sound grotesque at first, but it's way better than a 2-dimensional paper diagram of a mammalian heart if you want to really understand the form and function of a 4-chamber heart. You can stick your finger into each chamber and feel where the blood flows in and out. Diagrams do not do these kinds of things justice. Being able to actually see and feel how the 4 chambers relate to one another in space is very important and really requires a real heart or an exceptionally good model. And, again, models oversimplify by their very nature. Hearts vary, and I've yet to see a model where you can feel how strong the muscles in the left ventricle are. You can show the thickness in diagrams or in models and explain what it means, but you can feel that strength in the real thing.
The first thing you notice upon looking at the real heart, after learning all the chambers and blood flow directions from diagrams, is how damn confusing it is to connect that diagram with the real thing right in front of you. Diagrams can only get you so far.
posted by Tehanu at 7:55 AM on October 15, 2008
I totally wanted to link to my own website and write that I was legally changing my name to it, but that would have violated the rules about linking to your own stuff. And then the post would have been deleted and I would have been banned, no attention would have been brought to this issue, no minds would have been changed, and because of this callous disregard of metafilter rules another puppy mill puppy would have landed on a dissection tray instead of going to a loving home!
Besides, I have too many websites.
And one of them is actually my name, so that would be a bit futile.
I do find it interesting that the focus of this thread ended up being dissection, rather than the stupidity and ineffectiveness of changing your name as a method of protest. I guess she's getting a bit of attention, and people are for the most part focussing on the issue she wants them to, but I still question the effectiveness.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:20 PM on October 15, 2008
Besides, I have too many websites.
And one of them is actually my name, so that would be a bit futile.
I do find it interesting that the focus of this thread ended up being dissection, rather than the stupidity and ineffectiveness of changing your name as a method of protest. I guess she's getting a bit of attention, and people are for the most part focussing on the issue she wants them to, but I still question the effectiveness.
posted by cjorgensen at 1:20 PM on October 15, 2008
There's really not a lot to say about people who do dumb things to get attention. This woman sounds a bit lonely and is a little too into PETA for her own good. Anything beyond that is just sorta mean.
posted by GuyZero at 1:24 PM on October 15, 2008
posted by GuyZero at 1:24 PM on October 15, 2008
Yeah, I guess you're right. After saying, "that's dumb," all you have left is the issue to discuss.
This said, I would really imagine, and hope, that anyone who pulled the trigger on this kind of idea would know what the fallout would be. I do a lot of asshat things, but then I have pretty think skin. This said, going after her appearance isn't the fairest of games. Beyond being too easy, it ignores the most obvious issues. 1. This is a dumb idea. 2. She's got an issue that you may have an opion on.
I really doubt anyone will disagree that she now has a stupid name. Why judges allow such things is beyond me. Well, other than those pesky freedoms we value so much.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:09 AM on October 16, 2008
This said, I would really imagine, and hope, that anyone who pulled the trigger on this kind of idea would know what the fallout would be. I do a lot of asshat things, but then I have pretty think skin. This said, going after her appearance isn't the fairest of games. Beyond being too easy, it ignores the most obvious issues. 1. This is a dumb idea. 2. She's got an issue that you may have an opion on.
I really doubt anyone will disagree that she now has a stupid name. Why judges allow such things is beyond me. Well, other than those pesky freedoms we value so much.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:09 AM on October 16, 2008
In junior high, I was partnered up with a student who didn't want to dissect his worm. We talked with the teacher and were able to do a simulation on the computer instead and still get full credit.
My friend, full of 14 years of wisdom, called me 'gay' and hit me in the face with his cut-open, fermeldehyded worm.
If I close my eyes and think about it, I can feel it smacking me on the cheek.
posted by Twicketface at 11:15 AM on October 16, 2008
My friend, full of 14 years of wisdom, called me 'gay' and hit me in the face with his cut-open, fermeldehyded worm.
If I close my eyes and think about it, I can feel it smacking me on the cheek.
posted by Twicketface at 11:15 AM on October 16, 2008
« Older It started out with mom not knowing how to use the... | Jump stuff Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by GuyZero at 2:03 PM on October 14, 2008