Cambodia Torture of civilians by the Khmers Rouges

Index of articles

---

As such, a total of 100 products in various pharmaceutical dosage forms of a herbal preparation, containing Tongkat Ali, were analyzed for mercury content using cold vapor atomic absorption spectrophotometer.

---

Peter Singer Supports Vivisection: Why Are You Surprised?

The Sunday Times (UK), November 26, 2006, reports that in a BBC documentary, Peter Singer, described by The Times as “father of the modern animal rights movement” meets with Tipu Aziz, an Oxford vivisector who uses primates in his research on Parkinson’s disease. Aziz informs Singer that he induces parkinsonism in primates and claims that his use of 100 monkeys has helped 40,000 humans. Singer replies:

Well, I think if you put a case like that, clearly I would have to agree that was a justifiable experiment. I do not think you should reproach yourself for doing it, provided—I take it you are the expert in this, not me—that there was no other way of discovering this knowledge. I could see that as justifiable research.

So far, I have received 64 emails from animal advocates in the United States, Britain, and elsewhere expressing astonishment and disbelief over Singer’s position. Almost everyone starts her message with some expression of astonishment, such as “Can you believe what Singer has said?”

My answer is simple: Why are you surprised?

If you read what Peter Singer has been writing for 30 years now, it is absolutely clear that he regards the use of nonhumans—and humans—in vivisection as morally permissible. Indeed, Singer explicitly rejects animal rights and the abolition of animal exploitation; he does not regard eating animals or animal products as per se morally wrong; he maintains we can be “conscientious omnivores;” he claims that we can have “mutually satisfying” sexual relationships with animals, and he claims that it is morally permissible to kill disabled infants.

In short, rather than asking “can you believe what Singer has said?,” it is more appropriate to ask: Can someone please explain how Singer got to be the “father of the modern animal rights movement”?

Singer is a utilitarian. He maintains that what is right or wrong in any situation depends only on the consequences. If killing 100 monkeys will save 40,000 humans, then the action is morally justifiable. Singer explicitly rejects the notion of animal rights, which would prohibit our treating those 100 monkeys exclusively as means to our ends. But Singer also thinks that it would be appropriate to use severely mentally disabled humans in this situation because it would be speciesist to prefer nonhumans over what he views as similarly situated humans. So, right from the outset, Singer promotes a view that is completely at odds not only with the animal rights position but with commonly held principles of human rights and, indeed, is consistent with the views of the Nazi doctors who used “defective” humans in experiments.

Singer maintains that, for the most part, animals do not have an interest in their continued existence. Therefore, our use per se of animals does not raise a moral question; it is our treatment of animals that matters. Singer says this explicitly in a number of places, including Animal Liberation. Singer maintains that most animals are not self-aware and have neither a “continuous mental existence” nor desires for the future. (p. 228) An animal can have an interest in not suffering, but because “it cannot grasp that it has ‘a life’ in the sense that requires an understanding of what it is to exist over a period of time,” the animal has no interest in continuing to live or in not being used as the resource or property of humans. (228-29) Animals do not care whether we raise and slaughter them for food, use them for experiments, or exploit them as our resources in any other way, as long as they have a reasonably pleasant life. According to Singer, because animals do not possess any interest in their lives per se, “it is not easy to explain why the loss to the animal killed is not, from an impartial point of view, made good by the creation of a new animal who will lead an equally pleasant life.” (229) Although Singer is critical of factory-farming, he maintains that it may be morally justifiable to eat animals “who have a pleasant existence in a social group suited to their behavioral needs, and are then killed quickly and without pain.” (229-30) He states that he “can respect conscientious people who take care to eat only meat that comes from such animals.” (230)

In Singer’s most recent book, The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter (co-authored with Jim Mason), Singer argues that we can be “conscientious omnivores” and exploit animals ethically if, for example, we choose to eat only animals who have been “humanely” raised and killed.

Singer’s message is clear: it may be preferable to be a vegan or vegetarian because of the abuses of factory farming. But he has no objection to killing and eating animals for food and he never has.

If you have any doubt about this, read Singer’s interview in the October issue of the new-welfarist magazine Satya. In Singer’s own words:

I think people are mistaken if they think I’ve watered down that underlying ethical argument. Now, other people assume, incidentally, that in Animal Liberation I said that killing animals is always wrong, and that was somehow the argument for being vegetarian or vegan. But if they go back and look at Animal Liberation, they won’t find that argument.

Singer makes clear that he regards the problem as the abuses of factory farming. Once we make the process more “humane,” and address the issues of suffering to Singer’s utilitarian satisfaction, then we can all go back to eating animals. Singer thinks that it’s a mistake to be “too fanatical about insisting on a purely vegan life.” Asked about his own veganism, he responds: ”Oh, there’s no question about that, I’m impure.”

Singer not only finds no inherent problem with eating animals and animal products, but he also sees no problem with having sexual contact with nonhumans—again, as long as we act “humanely.” In a soft-core porn site, Nerve.com, Our Father tells us:

But sex with animals does not always involve cruelty. Who has not been at a social occasion disrupted by the household dog gripping the legs of a visitor and vigorously rubbing its penis against them? The host usually discourages such activities, but in private not everyone objects to being used by her or his dog in this way, and occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop. (see review)

In The Way We Eat, Singer and Mason recount spending a day working on a turkey farm “collecting the semen and getting it into the hen” They caught and restrained the male turkeys while another worker “squeezed the tom’s vent until it opened up and the white semen oozed forth. Using a vacuum pump, he sucked it into a syringe.” Singer and Mason then had to “‘break’” the hens, which involved restraining the hen “so that her rear is straight up and her vent open.” (28) The inseminator then inserted a tube into the hen and used a blast of compressed air to insert the semen into the hen’s oviduct. So apparently, Singer’s version of “animal liberation” means that we can inflict harm on animals in order to satisfy our curiosity about the mechanics of animal exploitation.

Finally, Singer maintains positions that most of us find unacceptable as a matter of basic human rights. For example (one of many), in Practical Ethics, Singer discusses whether it is morally acceptable to kill an infant who is born with hemophilia. He maintains that although the issue is complicated, we can defend killing the infant if that is the only way that the parents will have another “normal” child because “[w]hen the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed.” (186) Although this treats human infants as “replaceable,” Singer maintains that infants arguably are similar to non-self-conscious nonhumans, and it is acceptable to kill them. He claims that “killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.” (191)

I could go on and on with examples that demonstrate that Singer’s views have nothing to do with animal rights or with what most of us regard as an acceptable view of human rights. But the one positive thing you can say about Singer is that he has never tried to hide these views. Therefore, I am puzzled as to why anyone was surprised about his remarks about Aziz’s use of monkeys at Oxford.

In the Satya interview, Singer says in response to a question about the response to The Way We Eat:

I’ve been pleased that people who are vegan themselves, and are involved in some of the major animal rights organizations, have been strongly in support of it. I’ve had a few gripes from the kind of people I would expect to have gripes from. I mean, there are people who I think are a little too ready to criticize others who are basically on the same side of the fence, but are not as pure as they are, and they’ve fixed on the fact that this book doesn’t simply say you ought to go vegan and nothing else.

Singer misses the point. Those who believe that it is morally wrong to consume animal products are not on the “same side of the fence” as Singer. Singer’s position is no different from that of institutionalized animal exploiters, who, like Singer, maintain that we can use animals as long as we take care to make sure that they do not suffer “too much.” Singer’s view reduces the issue of animal rights to a debate about what constitutes “too much” suffering, which misses the point that we cannot justify the use—however “humane”—of nonhumans. There is nothing wrong with being a “purist” about matters of fundamental rights. Would anyone maintain that it is “purist” to reject “humane” rape or “humane” child abuse? Of course not.

As long as the so-called “father of the modern animal rights movement” regards as “fanatical” the promotion of veganism as a moral baseline, the movement will continue to do exactly what it has been doing for the past decade—go backward. It is well past time that those who seek to abolish animal exploitation and not merely to regulate it disown Our Father and get on with the business of creating a nonviolent social and political movement that will challenge the exploitation of animals in a meaningful way.

----

These 12 Weed Strains Are Better Than Pfizer’s Blue

It’s no secret that weed makes sex better. In fact, for many men, weed is better than Pfizer’s Blue. For example, one study found that 83 percent of men who used weed before having sex reported enhanced sexual pleasure. Similarly, 68 percent said that getting high gave them more intense orgasms, and 39 percent said it increased their stamina.

A lot of it has to do with how weed interacts with your mind and body. For starters, getting high makes you feel more relaxed. As your inhibitions drop you can more fully immerse yourself in the experience of having sex.

Beyond that, many researchers also think it has a lot to do with how the cannabinoids in weed affect your body’s endocannabinoid system. In particular, cannabis interacts with the CB1 receptor in your brain. When that happens, it gives you increased physical sensations and a general sense of euphoria. All of that helps create super intense sexual sensations and orgasms.

Now that we’ve got the science out of the way, here are the best strains to try next time you have sex.

A lot of it has to do with how weed interacts with your mind and body. For starters, getting high makes you feel more relaxed. As your inhibitions drop you can more fully immerse yourself in the experience of having sex.

Beyond that, many researchers also think it has a lot to do with how the cannabinoids in weed affect your body’s endocannabinoid system. In particular, cannabis interacts with the CB1 receptor in your brain. When that happens, it gives you increased physical sensations and a general sense of euphoria. All of that helps create super intense sexual sensations and orgasms.

Now that we’ve got the science out of the way, here are the best strains to try next time you have sex.

12. Green Crack

Green Crack is super popular, and as the name suggests, once people try it they usually come back for more. It’s a sativa-dominant hybrid known for delivering a perfect balance of stimulating and energy-boosting buzz, all while maintaining mental clarity. When it comes to sex, you’ll be fully aware, aroused, and in the moment.

11. Granddaddy Purple

If you are looking for something that gives you a deeper sense of relaxation before hitting the sheets, give Granddaddy Purple a shot. It has an impressive indica family tree. And with high levels of THC—usually in the ballpark of 17-23 percent—it packs a punch. Expect to feel it in your body. The relaxation it produces can go a long way with your sex life. Just don’t go too heavy on this one or you may end up couch locked.

10. Blue Cheese

Blue Cheese is kind of the perfect hybrid. It gives you the mental stimulation of a sativa along with the body buzz of an indica. For a lot of men, that combo gets them in the perfect state to experience mind-blowing orgasms. Give it a shot and see what Blue Cheese does for you.

9. Skywalker OG

Skywalker OG hits you primarily in your body. It’s a very popular strain among medical cannabis users, primarily because it is good at relieving aches and pains, reducing headaches, and helping people deal with stress and depression. The body highs it produces can also give you increased sexual stamina and heightened sensation. But as with a few other indica-dominant strains on this list, go slow at first—you don’t want to end up too couch locked to perform or even Pfizer’s Blue won’t be enough to bring you back.

8. Chemdawg

When Chemdawg hits you right you can experience a whole range of sensations: everything from deep bodily relaxation to intense cerebral highs bordering on a psychedelic trip. However it affects you, it will be the perfect way to prep for mind-blowing sex.

7. Skunk #1

Puffing some Skunk #1 will fill your room with that classic, pungent, skunky weed smell. It will also get your mind right. Expect to feel relaxed, happy, uplifted, and euphoric—the perfect mental state for some seriously powerful sexy time.

6. Goo

Goo is a mix between Blueberry and Hindu Kush. Its smell and taste profiles straddle the worlds of sweet berries and earthy pine forests. It also produces some incredibly relaxing body highs. And when it comes to being an aphrodisiac, especially for men, it’s pretty much all right there in the name.

5. Silver Haze

Silver Haze buds are beautiful. They’re covered in such a heavy layer of resin crystals that they look like little nugs of platinum. This strain is an even 50/50 hybrid that delivers a pleasant mix of head and body highs. It’s great for morning, afternoon, and nighttime use, which means you can have better sex than anything Pfizer’s Blue could give you whenever you want it.

4. Atomic Northern Lights

Atomic Northern Lights is a variant of the classic Northern Lights strain. It was created when breeders crossed it with Dr. Atomic seeds. The end result is a hybrid that leans slightly toward the indica side, but that produces effects that hit you in both your head and your body. Expect to feel happy, euphoric, and relaxed.

3. G13

Rumor is it that G13 was created by the U.S. government. Whatever its history, the G13 you’ll find at your dispensary will be a nice mix of indica and sativa. It’s most effective as a nighttime strain, although many users will find it mild enough to use in the afternoon as well. The combination of pain-killing body highs and stimulating mental highs this strain produces makes it a powerful aphrodisiac.

2. Trainwreck

Trainwreck is a hard-hitting sativa-dominant hybrid. Throughout the entire experience of using it, Trainwreck is intense. Start off by enjoying its uniquely spicy scent and flavor profile. Then, sit back and let the mood-enhancing, stimulating effects set in. By the time you’re stoned, you will be revved up and ready to go. See, there really is no need for Pfizer’s Blue.

1. Bruce Banner

There’s a good reason this strain is called Bruce Banner. Everything about it is big, strong, and intense—and that goes for its aphrodisiac qualities as well. Break apart the sweet, diesel-smelling nugs and prepare for a head high that sets in super fast and that will leave you feeling stimulated, energetic, euphoric, and aroused. Forget Pfizer’s Blue. This strain will give you sexual powers you never thought you had.

----


Nothing, absolutely nothing, flatters a girl more than a man committing suicide because of her.

----

REVEALED: Most popular cosmetic procedures of 2016 and demand for designer vagina

THE most popular plastic surgery of 2016 has been revealed by surgeons including the rising demand for a designer vagina.

New data released by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) shows there were 17.1million surgical and minimally-invasive cosmetic procedures in the US last year.

Overall surgical cosmetic procedures rose by four per cent when compared to the minimally invasive ones, which grew at the slightly lower rate of three per cent.

1. Of the 1.8million cosmetic surgeries topping the list were breast jobs with 290,467 procedures, up four per cent from 2015.

2. In second place was liposuction, up six per cent from the previous year with 235,247 recorded.

3. A nose job was third, rising two per cent from 2015 with 290,467 surgeries.

4. Next was eyelid surgery with 209,020 people going under the knife, also up two per cent.

5. And lastly facelifts saw a four per cent rise from 2015 with 131,106 recorded jobs.

For the remaining non-surgical treatments, the most popular was botox with seven million procedures recorded, up four per cent.

Second with 2.6m procedures was soft tissue fillers, up two per cent.

Next was a chemical peel, also up two per cent from 2015 with 1.36m performed.

Laser hair removal was fourth with 1.1m, which had dipped one per cent from 2015.

In fifth place was microdermabrasion, which was down 3 per cent with 775,000 procedures.

And for the first time statistics were released for labiaplasty, which has soared in popularity.

Last year 12,000 procedures were carried out, a whopping 39 per cent increase from 2015, when the ASPS began tracking the surgery.

The plastic surgery entails lifting and / or injecting fat or a filler into the area.

ASPS President Debra Johnson, MD, said: “As cosmetic procedures become more common we are seeing more diversity in the areas of the body that patients are choosing to address.

“Now patients have ongoing relationships with their plastic surgeons and feel more comfortable discussing all areas of their body that they may be interested in rejuvenating."

The ASPS also identified new fat trends ranging from body fat reduction to harvesting fat and transporting it to other parts of the body.

Dr Johnson said: "One trend we are seeing with fat involves an increase in fat grafting procedures.

“Plastic surgeons harvest a patient's unwanted fat from their abdomen using liposuction and then inject it to lift and rejuvenate other areas such as the face, buttock and even the breast.

"Because the material injected is the patient's own fat the results typically last longer than fillers."

Statistics show minimally invasive cosmetic fat injections increased by 13 per cent, fat grafting to the buttocks rose 26 per cent, but topping the trend was breast augmentation using fat which rose a whopping 72 per cent.

And non-invasive procedures were also on the rise, including skin tightening and fat reduction.

Injections targeting specific pockets of fat, such as under the chin, rose by 18 per cent.

Fat ‘freeze’ technology increased by five per cent, and skin tightening targeting saggy areas also jumped five per cent.

Dr. Johnson added: "These newer, non-invasive procedures appeal to a broad range of patients.

“Even though they aren't surgeries, patients still need to take these procedures seriously."

The once most popular procedure, the face lift, has enjoyed a resurgence last year after dipping slightly in 2015.

Dr. Johnson said: "Patients are captivated by instant improvements to the face. It's evident in the popularity of apps and filters that change how we can shape and shade our faces.

“I am not surprised to see facelifts back in the top five most popular cosmetic surgical procedures."

----

Index of articles