About 50 years ago, there was a legitimate argument going around that animals such as dogs and cats weren't even conscious for one reason or another and thus there was a legitimate argument about administering pain relief to animals in veterinary medicine.
Sorry, Eric, I'm not quite sure which perspective you are arguing. Was there specific evidence (that is, an increased of knowledge) that put to rest these "legitimate arguments" and allowed ethics to develop into the form we are more familiar? If I had to imagine, I'd suppose that this might have taken the form of comparing the nervous system of animals and humans to indicate that they serve the same function.
If so, was that increase of knowledge fundamental to the current state of ethical treatment of animals in the western world?
Though to note, the debate (as I understand you to be representing it, but I might have misunderstood) existed far longer than just 50 years ago. For example, the Island of Dr. Moreau was quite controversial in 1896 because it contained scenes of animal vivisection. I believe John Locke wrote on the subject as well, in favor of animal rights, though for the life of me I can't recall in what works. Same with C.S. Lewis. The earliest animal rights laws I believe are from the 17th century as well.
Such things would not have occurred if the knowledge that allowed for ethical treatment of animals wasn't discovered until 50 years ago. But again, I'm not sure if that was what you were trying to argue.
I doesn't really contain the history of the people who believed/came in contact with god, if it did it would have to contain the Bible. It isn't about prediction, it isn't about any of that. Just you should live your life this way...
Yup. I became aware of the speed of light claim after a Muslim informed me of it. Unfortunately, individuals taking texts out of context is not limited to Christianity (or indeed, even religion; Erich von Däniken is a famous example of an individual using science in a manner that is rather unscientific).
That's interesting, I never knew that. I thought that he died in the New World? But if I were to wager a guess I would say that he probably had syphilus. Do any history buffs have any info on this?
It is perhaps particularly damning because it is thought that Syphilus originated in the New World.
Ah, good ol Columbian Exchange. There are a number of diseases that passed from Europe to the New World, and visa versa; syphilus is just one of them (though to my knowledge, it has been fairly conclusively traced to a New World origin. But again, this is all out of my area of focus).
Columbus was jailed for a time, but I don't recall anything about insanity. Failing health had him call for governing aid from Spain, but he was replaced instead. The replacement subsequently arrested him and sent him back to Spain for various crimes related to how he ruled (such as torture, I think). I believe the King released him without a trial.
If I am recalling correct, Columbus died in Spain of a heart attack (though I seem to recall it was caused by disease... suppose it could have been syphilus, but I haven't heard of syphilus causing heart attacks either).
