how about the one person who thinks all animal testing is vivisection and continues to say, in many threads, that I am pro-vivisection.

In Defense of Animals (an organization run by a veterinarian), "What is vivisection?"
http://www.vivisectioninfo.org/
Vivisection is defined as the act or practice of performing experiments on living animals. The term is used to refer to several categories of scientific or medical procedures performed on animals including: drug or chemical testing, biomedical research, and raising and killing animals for parts (such as heart valves) or organs.

National Anti-Vivisection Society
http://www.navs.org/faq/faq_main.cfm?SectionID=FAQs
What is vivisection?
Vivisection is the practice of cutting into or using invasive techniques on live animals. The term is derived from the Latin word vivus, which means alive. Vivisection is commonly called animal experimentation and includes the use of animals for research, product testing and in education.

British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection
http://www.buav.org/faqs.html#faq1
What is vivisection?
Vivisection literally means the 'cutting up' of living animals, but has now become more generally used as the term for all experiments on living animals (in vivo) as many animal experiments, such as toxicity (poisoning) tests, will not involve surgical procedures.

One can be forgiven for not being up on animal rights, common useage of words, etc., but even when this information is pointed out (yet again), you will likely still insist that you have the only correct useage of this word. This has been common useage for a very long time...

http://www.neavs.org/aboutneavs/history_1895_1920.htm
Vivisection is the exploitation of living animals for experiments concerning the phenomena of life . . . . Such experiments may range from procedures which are practically painless, to those involving distress, exhaustion, starvation, baking, burning, suffocation, poisoning, inoculation with disease, every kind of mutilation, and long-protracted agony and death.
Albert Leffingwell, MD, An Ethical Problem (1914)

I just wanted to thank you for explaining this to me awhile back.
You know how I feel about it.:up:

Is the definition really all that debateable (and thus heap worthy)? :stinkeye:

Is the definition really all that debateable (and thus heap worthy)? :stinkeye:

I just think that he is very strong on his beliefs on this subject and just wanted to see how many other people feel about it also.:)

One can be forgiven for not being up on animal rights, common useage of words, etc., but even when this information is pointed out (yet again), you will likely still insist that you have the only correct useage of this word. This has been common useage for a very long time...

Well, sure. But why get your knickers in a bunch just because some people prefer the medically correct definition to sloppy, common usage?

Well, sure. But why get your knickers in a bunch just because some people prefer the medically correct definition to sloppy, common usage?

I thought it was panties in a bunch were I live. lol:cool:

Red: I was responding to krista's accusation towards me in another thread. That is where the first quote in my original post comes from. A moderator split my post off from that thread; I did not start this thread.

Krista thinks she has the only correct definition. But that is not correct. Of the people who *actually use* this term, most seem to understand and use the common useage (which is why it's considered common; and has been used in this way for a very long time). If one can't accept words changing from their original meaning, I guess they could read texts in Old English and never learn new meanings or figure out current useage, or keep up with what's currently happening. It's just the way it goes that words change.

Red: I was responding to krista's accusation towards me in another thread. That is where the first quote in my original post comes from. A moderator split this post off from that thread; I did not start this thread.

Krista thinks she has the only correct definition. But that is not correct. Of the people who *actually use* this term, many more seem to understand and use the common useage (which is why it's considered common; and has been considered so for a very long time). If one can't accept words changing from their original meaning, I guess they could read texts in Old English and never learn new meanings or figure out current useage, or keep up. It's just the way it goes that words change.:up: :up:

If one can't accept words changing from their original meaning, I guess they could read texts in Old English and never learn new meanings or figure out current useage, or keep up with what's currently happening. It's just the way it goes that words change.

The word hasn't changed at all, nor has the primary definition. It's just that it's acquired an additional definition to reflect the less precise usage that is becoming common among some. http://tinyurl.com/d42jj

Thank you Red. I think we're in agreement. Your link said what mine did:

Medical Dictionary
One entry found for vivisection.
Main Entry: vivi·sec·tion
Function: noun
: the cutting of or operation on a living animal usually for physiological or pathological investigation; broadly : animal experimentation especially if considered to cause distress or result in injury or death to the subject

krista said that "animal testing" cannot be called "vivisection," and these links, even from a medical dictionary, show that it can. Preference is a different issue.

The word hasn't changed at all, nor has the primary definition.By what criteria is a definition primary?

At any rate, like implied, there is nothing supporting the idea that those who use the more inclusive meaning are somehow clearly mistaken or have not understood the term etc. (which is the opinion that some hold).

Yeah I think it's really important to note that Irizary did not start this thread, didn't ask for it to be split off, and that the first post didn't even originate in the Heap.

By what criteria is a definition primary?


By convention, in dictionaries the most frequently encountered usage is listed first.

By convention, in dictionaries the most frequently encountered usage is listed first.

Not necessarily...

Since words and their meanings develop over time, dictionary entries are organized to reflect these changes. Dictionaries may either list meanings in the historical order in which they appeared, or may list meanings in order of popularity and most common use.
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:fLUPszcbzYAJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary

Historical order, rather than most frequent use, would also make sense for the first listing of the more limited definition of vivisection. Because I think, today, that the less restricted useage is actually more common, among people who actually use the term with any regularity.

In times like this, I recommend a good f*** to loosen up the panty strings.

I guess if people like to discuss the dictionary, it's fine. It seems a little technical, but some people like getting into words the way that other people like cooking and recipes and such... The only reason why I entered into it in the first place was because of being accused a few times of using the word incorrectly (by you), and then it snowballed from there, as you can see :) Not sure why it's so debateable though, it either means this thing, or it doesn't.

See post 15. I highly recommend it.

Because I think, today, that the less restricted useage is actually more common, among people who actually use the term with any regularity.

That's fine. Then vivisection no longer means physically harming an animal. I'm not sure why someone pro-AR would be so insistent on diluting what used to be a powerful image, but if it works, go for it.

Red - and since it's ok to do that to the animal testing definations, let's also do that to vegetarianism and to veganism labels, as the less restricted usage is actually more common, among people who actually use the term with any regularity. Bring the fish eating vegetarians!

Red - and since it's ok to do that to the animal testing definations, let's also do that to vegetarianism and to veganism labels, as the less restricted usage is actually more common, among people who actually use the term with any regularity. Bring the fish eating vegetarians!

Too true. :p

Then vivisection no longer means physically harming an animal.The original definition seems to have meant surgery or cutting, and one reason for widening the use is precisely that the restricted meaning doesn't cover other forms of physical harm.

The original defination of vegetarian didn't include fish, and one reason for widening the use is to move with the times.

Hey, it doesn't really matter to me whether you prefer the useage or not. The only point was that the general use of the word is valid. You were incorrect (after harping on that your way was the only way for quite a while), and now, instead of just saying, "yeah, I guess that word does have another usage," it looks like you're trying to find ways to diminish or distract from that. Sounds like you need to take your own advice about post 15, since you were so adamant about it!

This thread has argued from the definitions offered by dictionaries and organizations. Looking at those sources:

To take Merriam-Webster as an example, the broad definition of 'vivisection' is included, but the "broad" definition of 'vegetarianism' is not included. To take another example, Wikipedia mentions the broad meaning of 'vivisection' at the very start of the article, but fish-eating is explicitly denied in the vegetarianism article.

Should we have a show of hands from those who feed their pets a commercially formulated food? Might as well start outing all the pro-vivisectionists.