Some of these extreme animal lovers....

Discussion in 'Pets and Animals' started by Cosmic Butterfly, May 29, 2006.

  1. Jennasia

    Jennasia Member

    I never said animals were pure of heart. I dont think they use their hearts as we do for emotions and such so their hearts can not be pure and can not be evil. They use animal instinct. WE use our hearts, in a sense anyway.

    Yes, animals learn things, they are ever evolving creatures as we are. Survival of the fittest.

    Animal rights movements are mostly driven by animal suffering. Their point is animals may not think like us but that doesn't mean they cant feel pain and suffering like us.

    Do you honestly believe an animal acts in cruelty for the sole purpose of being cruel? The lion that played dead for the vulture has learned that this act will get him food. Playing dead is a common practice in the animal kingdom as a defense mechanism. Their purpose is to ensure their survival and eliminate threats. I don't think the lion was thinking up ways to play tricks on his prey while cooling off in the shade.
  2. Jennasia

    Jennasia Member

    And so do I.
  3. lazysunbird

    lazysunbird Member

    I know it seems a little insane for people to be acting like this but i really don't have a problem with it. Why is it such a big deal for some people to treat animals with more respect than they do humans when most human beings constantly treat animals with no respect? You can't think they're all crazy either..some people have more of a connection with animals than they do to people.
  4. busmama

    busmama go away

    So there are extremist in every group, big deal. Most animal lovers are not extremist. I have met some extreme animal rights fighters, I've met more extreme anti abortion protesters, chistian prostelyzers and death penalty proponents/opponents.

    I personally would be more likely to coo over a puppy than a baby. For one thing I'm not that fond of babies, and another I hated it when strangers wanted to get close to my babies, yuck germs. Yes it is wrong when anyone (not just animal lovers) try to force thier belifs on someone else. I admit I give more $$ to The league for Animal Welfare than any other charity, that doesn't mean I don't like people. I just feel that the animals need it too. I am the first person to feed a hungry soul, to buy candy bars I'll never eat from little kids or smile at someone who looks down. But I'd run just as fast if I for an animal in need as a person!
  5. Maggie Sugar

    Maggie Sugar Senior Member

    Absolutely, I couldn't have said it better myself. If I saw someone kicking a dog, I would really be uncomfortable in their presense, if I saw them kicking a child or a womyn or an other man, I would be even more uncomfortable. I may be wrong about who said it, but I think Ghandi said, "You can judge a society by the way it' treats it's animals and it's children." I'd like to add it's womyn, too.


    One can be kind to animals and humans, I think Cosmic's point is people who put animals above people. Like those who wouldn't allow an experiment on an animal, even if it could save the lives of thousands of sick children.
  6. lazysunbird

    lazysunbird Member

    I don't consider myself any kind of animal rights extremist whatsoever, but what is wrong with not thinking it's right to experiment on animals to save human lives? I don't think there's anything wrong with thinking that at all.
  7. Elle

    Elle Senior Member

    i agree. would it be OK to experiment on a child if it would save millions of animals' lives? cure bird flu? of course it wouldn't. i see no difference. a life is a life. a soul is a soul. we have no right to hijack anyone's life.
  8. That is not a very good point. They would not experiment on a child because they would experiment on another animal. The reason why they experiment on animals now, is so that another human does not have to face the risks....

    It is sad that animals have to be studied on but almost all the medicines and products that we use today have been pretested on animals. I dont approve of it, but if I had a choice for my parents or daughter being alive then I would definately choose them over a lab rat.

    This is planet earth, and there is cycle and it involves species feeding off eachother. Energy cycle. It will be different in heaven, maybe? But for now as long as we are in this dimension, Im going to say that mother nature is not all roses and sunlight through the canopy. Its also the flies laying their eggs on a dying fawn, an old stallion getting kicked in the face by a younger one who steals his harem. This world is a fight for survival, right now your immune system is being attacked by little microogranisms constantly trying to feed off your abundant energy...One day we will all succumb.
  9. I dont think there is anything wrong with what you think. But perhaps if you have children your opinion will change.
  10. Look at the very first sentence you posted. Something about animals loving you unconditionally, and greeting you with overjoyed enthusiasm.
    Ever been around feral dogs or cats?

    I think that Im just going in circles with you. You are not getting what I am saying. Especially with your last paragraph! yeesh! [​IMG] What do you think I think?

    Im not comparing their perception with humans. Im not comparing their reality to human reality. Im not comparing their understanding of right and wrong with humans.
    BUT Animals are more than instinct. They suffer when their baby dies, they feel joy, contentment, excitement, fear, anger, frustration, SUFFERING, and even love!

    This is off topic now, some Im done responding to this part of the thread.
  11. DancerAnnie

    DancerAnnie Resident Beach Bum

    Adult humans have the capacity to choose whether they want products tested on them or not...animals aren't able to voice that choice. Most every company out there can afford to pay humans to test their products...I don't see anything wrong with that.
  12. Elle

    Elle Senior Member

  14. Elle

    Elle Senior Member

    hell no i would not volunteer. but thats not the point. and im have a feeling (just a small one....) that the guinea pigs or rats or rabbits wouldn't volunteer either. but there are people who would volunteer for the right amt of money. that is beside the point though. your emotions tell you that animal testing is ok as long as it saves someone you love......thats your own personal issue and it has nothing to do with the poor souls that are being tortured on a daily basis. no one wants their family or loved one to die of something that could possibly be preventable. that said, that doesn't make it ok put another living, feeling being thru that kind of torture. we trade one life for another and basically what that says is that human life is more valueable, more important, more signifigant than that of any other creature and the preservation of human life is worth making life miserable for another being that happens to be different and more helpless than ourselves. it's a question of do you accept that to be ethically sound? i don't. you say their lives were used to help they are marters? dieing for the greater good of mankind? or forced into slavery?
  15. lazysunbird

    lazysunbird Member

    The way i see it is that unless we can produce life saving medicines and products that do not require them to be tested on animals then we shouldn't have them. I guess that's fairly impossible when it comes to medicine but that's the way i feel it should be. Nothing should have to die or suffer just to save our lives. When it's our time to go,then it's our time to go. This is quite off topic i know.
  16. This is heading off topic, but I would like you to go visit a childrens hospital and tell that to the family, or the child who hopes to live face to face.

    Man has been trying to perserve his life since there was medicine men and women in primitive indigenous villages since the dawn of time. Even then if a sick Amazonian child got poisonous bug bite no one in the village was like "I guess its her time to go" and they let her die. Seriously....come on Lazysunbird.
    They would call the medicine man and he would create a healing brew or broth and the entire tribe would put lots of energy into saving her life. You can still find people that are very connected to earth, and very honorable living in Africa, South America, Australia, etc. not afraid to utilize another organisms to perserve a human life.
    This discussion could get very philisophical and we could ponder mans purpose and power on this planet. Perhaps we need to create another thread.
  17. We can all talk the talk, but can we walk the walk????

    So you wouldnt, but somewhere out there homeless people will for the right amount(another victim of this cruel world). Yes there would be people who would volunteer but its very dangerous, and most of the times those people are desperate for money, or they are very ill and looking for anything to save their lives.
    And also like I was saying a company does not just create a chemical and start testing it on people. It doesnt work like that in America, anymore at least. The FDA makes them do lots of testing before it can even enter a human system.
    No the animals were not martyrs. They were just victim of this stage of development that man is going through trying to improve/evolve/understand its own physical body and others. Human kind is heading a certain direction in its development and what we take, we must eventually return....or suffer more ourselves.
  18. lazysunbird

    lazysunbird Member

    Well that is my personal belief,that we shouldn't harm or kill another living being,no matter how 'insignificant', in order to save or better our own lives. My belief isn't all that important anyway because regardless of what i think and say animals will still be tested on and people will continue to be saved by modern medicine.
  19. Elle

    Elle Senior Member

    ooooooh OK, i see. so its OK to let another living being suffer so long as we benefit. cause ya know, were just "trying to evolve". the animals are victims but it does not have to be that way.

    .....and yes i know how testing works in america. MOST of the testing done on animals in unnesscary at this point anyway. and where did i say that "homeless" people should be the poor souls who give over their health to some drug companies? i said human volunteers and by that i meant in general, not the poor homeless or prisoners or what have you. maybe those would be the ones who would volunteer. hell maybe EVERY homeless or poor person would be "lab rats" for some cash. but it's still THEIR choice. just like my choice would be not to "walk the walk". real lab rats don't even have a chance. pray there's no reincarnation.
  20. Beyond-the-Clouds

    Beyond-the-Clouds Senior Member

    Animals is fo' da ghey man. They aren't differant from any other object except they move around, and what the hell, autonomous robots do that to, but to yallz fuss about hurting them?

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice