Horses/animals as our 'equals'- I think not... Teeny tiny rant.

I completely agree with Serephin.

Although I will say that while I disagree wholeheartedly with animal testing for ANY reason, if I became ill and refused a treatment developed from animal testing it would just have been a waste of those animals lives, so if I ever got ill I would use those treatments. There are far more humane and accurate ways of testing drugs etc, and I would ban animals testing and revert to that if I could.

The thought of an animal being tortured for the benefit of humans makes me sick to my stomach - why don't we bloody well test on each other.
 
This is very interesting...

Buddhist thinking would not place us as more important or less important than an animal, but rather that we are all fundamentally the same, part of the universe, the same atoms etc etc. They would consider us to have better karma and be more fortunate because we are humans and not animals (animals suffer more as there is more struggle for survival but people can help themselves as they have more thinking capabilities). They teach that you should be compassionate towards ALL sentient beings, although it can take a lifetime to develop this feeling of compassion towards everyone, from your enemy to an ant. Compassion being very different to attachment (eg relying on animals to make us happy, a form of selfishness and needyness) or pity (putting ourselves above creatures we feel are inferior to ourselves). But rather compassion being a genuine desire to help others and put them before ourselves. For instance by making our pets lives as comfortable as possible without being selfish (ie using a horse as a rosette machine in return!)


P.S I am not a practising Buddhist but I think they do hold a lot of valid ideas, sorry if I haven't explained it well.
 
[ QUOTE ]
This is very interesting...

Buddhist thinking would not place us as more important or less important than an animal, but rather that we are all fundamentally the same, part of the universe, the same atoms etc etc. They would consider us to have better karma and be more fortunate because we are humans and not animals (animals suffer more as there is more struggle for survival but people can help themselves as they have more thinking capabilities). They teach that you should be compassionate towards ALL sentient beings, although it can take a lifetime to develop this feeling of compassion towards everyone, from your enemy to an ant. Compassion being very different to attachment (eg relying on animals to make us happy, a form of selfishness and needyness) or pity (putting ourselves above creatures we feel are inferior to ourselves). But rather compassion being a genuine desire to help others and put them before ourselves. For instance by making our pets lives as comfortable as possible without being selfish (ie using a horse as a rosette machine in return!)


P.S I am not a practising Buddhist but I think they do hold a lot of valid ideas, sorry if I haven't explained it well.

[/ QUOTE ]

smile.gif


thank you for posting that, you explained it perfectly!
grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i realised that people of your opinion who i've encountered before can rarely accept their opinion is just that an opinion and they do not have the right to categorically state what other peoples motives are.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could say exactly the same thing about you.

Darn I'm more nosey than i thought, i came back. I don't believe at any point i have stated what i believe as fact?

[ QUOTE ]
So stick to you rigid opinion,

[/ QUOTE ]

thank you so much for your permission
smirk.gif


I'm glad you recognise my superiority
tongue.gif
(jokes!)

[ QUOTE ]
and please for goodness sake don't ever get ill, because based on the feelings you have expressed its unlikely you'll be able to get better

[/ QUOTE ]

you automatically assume I will run to pharmaceuticals if I were unfortunate to get ill.

in the case of some illnesses yes, i accept some natural remedies can cure some illnesses but in diseases such as cancer i wouldn't be willing to risk it

[ QUOTE ]
reply if you feel like it but i won't be checking as this is a subject we both clearly feel passionate about, and i won't change my mind and you probably won't change yours

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt that, but thanks again for your permission for me to reply
smirk.gif
- and I have 'encountered' many people like yourself, unfortunately.
crazy.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what is unfortunate about people like me?
crazy.gif
All i was saying is that you are entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine and that we could argue for days but we still wouldnt agree!!
grin.gif
I can understand what i think are your reasonings, I just felt offended at how you stated the other side

Dobby that was one of my original points, if there was a viable option then no i wouldn't support the use of animal testing (rather like i don't support it for the beauty industry).
 
[ QUOTE ]


Darn I'm more nosey than i thought, i came back. I don't believe at any point i have stated what i believe as fact?

[/ QUOTE ]

neither did I - I looked at my post and no where is the word 'fact' mentioned - I did however say that I stood by my comment which you regarded as an unfair generalisation.

[ QUOTE ]


in the case of some illnesses yes, i accept some natural remedies can cure some illnesses but in diseases such as cancer i wouldn't be willing to risk it

[/ QUOTE ]

there is no 'cure' for cancer perse, only things to make people more comfortable, I have reason to believe more in the human spirit and wish to heal than modern drugs - but thats a whole different subject!

[ QUOTE ]


I'm not sure what is unfortunate about people like me?
crazy.gif
All i was saying is that you are entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine and that we could argue for days but we still wouldnt agree!!
grin.gif
I can understand what i think are your reasonings, I just felt offended at how you stated the other side

[/ QUOTE ]

well if you felt offended by my post, you can maybe understand that I could of felt offended by your post

- I hold all animal life in great reverance and it upsets me how humanity abuses this life - you attacked my opinion, fair enough, (I also posted quotes from many other people who share the same opinion) but I feel that the way people treat animals is a direct reflection on our society and only today there is a monster post about neglected horses on this site. I think humanity is very good at justifying our abuse, and personally I don't feel there is ANY justification at all.

I am far from perfect, I have made my mistakes and believed the lies spun to us in order to allow such monstrous acts to continue - throughout my life I have always loved animals and felt an affinity with them, so it shocks me to think that someone could look into a cat or dogs eyes and not see 'something' there - just because we do not understand them does not mean they are automatically inferior.

I am with the Buddists on this one.......
 
There are treatments for cancer - removal of tumor through surgery, radiation, chemotherapy - all of which involve drugs and procedures tested on animals. Having had 3 close relatives treated sucessfully for cancer through these three methods, I can tell you treatment does work.
 
[ QUOTE ]
There are treatments for cancer - removal of tumor through surgery, radiation, chemotherapy - all of which involve drugs and procedures tested on animals. Having had 3 close relatives treated sucessfully for cancer through these three methods, I can tell you treatment does work.

[/ QUOTE ]

I said there wasn't a CURE - of course there are treatments.

Having had close relatives die of cancer I can tell you they don't work.

It is not so cut and dried and points back to the individual's will to heal and recover. Treatments can take you to a point, but from there on it is the person who responds to it and either heals or doesn't. The medical establishment considers a cancer sufferer 'cured' if they live for 5 years after treatment, regardless if they die in the next 6 months after that time period - not much of a cure then, is it.

not sure what your point is really
crazy.gif
 
Here here, I'm glad your relatives got better, it sounds like a cure to me!

Serephin, I haven't attacked your opinion in any way, at each stage i have been very clear about the fact you are entitled to your opinion. If you were offended I'm sorry.
 
I'm sorry your relatives were not as fortunate as mine. Treatments (adn so called 'cures') do not work for everyone for everything, but in the case of the 3 relatives I am thinking of, the conventional medicine worked, and they are all cancer free. How well a treatment will work depends in part on what type of cancer it is, where it is, how early it is caught and how aggressive the treatment is. In my mother's case, conservative treatment was tried initially, which for her didn't work, so a more radical approach with extensive flesh removal was taken, and for her it worked. With excision, the surgeon either cuts it all out, or he doesn't - it isn't really to do with how the patient reacts, more to do with the skill of the surgeon.

Sucess is measured with a 5 year survival rate - how else do you suggest measuring it? Many people get cancer later in life - if you are 70 when diagnosed, a 5 year extension to your life is damn good, of course, if you are 20, it isn't nearly as good, but it gives a benchmark to determine how sucessful diagnosis and treatments are. It also shows how much treatments have improved, the 5 year survival rate for most cancers today is far higher than the survival rate 25 years ago. That just wouldn't be possible without testing on animals. I do put a higher value on my mother and my other relatives lives than I do on mice, rats and rabbits. I think most people when faced with saving a pet rat, or their mother, would feel the same way.
 
Serephin we're getting a bit pedantic aren't we? Just getting in to semantics. As for treatments not working I'm sorry you have lost people but that is like saying because the car you own won't start means all cars won't start. I agree that a persons attitude towards their illness can have a great impact on their health but i don't believe a sad person won't get better just because they are sad it will always be a combination of factors.

Cancer incidently (not talking tumours which block arteries) so i have been informed during a health psychology unit at uni is not what kills the patient, its is the effect on the immune system, the immune system is not equipped to fight cancer but it keeps trying anyway and eventually becomes compromised, so i believe when some cancer sufferers die it is the result of a complication not the actual cancer. Not 100% on this just what i think i remember. but it would explain how a persons outlook on life can affect their health, happier people do tend to have better immune systems.
 
I agree with Serephin. I also do not think that we are superior to animals in the vast scheme of thinks, we may be intellectually superior, but physically and instinctually we are vastly inferior. It is only our capacity for destruction and self justification that allows us to have 'dominion' over the animals.

Every life created is just as special as the next one. We don't even have a use, we are no good as food (animals arent allowed to incorporate us into the food chain where everything else belongs) and destroy and change everything we touch.
We are going to become extinct soon and it will be our own fault, see who is superior then.
 
I'm not disagreeing that we are inferior in terms of physically and instinctively but I do believe in evolution, if those were the areas that mattered more then why don't lions, tigers, hippos etc have a larger rule?

Completely agree you can't blame an animal for eating a human, if my understanding of your view is correct you would not want any action taken if an animal ate your mother? (by any i mean relocation, which is not necessarily nice, they could have young, be put into an area which is dangerous to them)

I'm not having a go about your opinion I'm just curious as to your answers.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I agree that a persons attitude towards their illness can have a great impact on their health but i don't believe a sad person won't get better just because they are sad it will always be a combination of factors.


[/ QUOTE ]

just to expand on this - I watched my OH's father effectively make himself die. He was diagnosed with stomach cancer and whisked into hospital and effectively 'cured' (in the medical and physical sense of the word). No cancer remained.

For the next year he spiraled into a terrible depression, he actively looked for ways to perpetuate his feelings of doom. He acted like a petulant child, would sulk, have tantrums, refuse to eat and the such like, his poor wife was at a loss, she couldn't reach him. Then one night he got his wish, the cancer was back, he was taken into hospital and died that night, his wife counted his pulse down to nothing at about 3am.

He gave up on life, and he simply let himself die. He was quite a parochial man, had never left the country and spent most of his days alone in his shed tinkering.

We can only do so much for the physical, but the spiritual (or soul, or sense of self, or mind - whatever you want to call it) is the one effectively in charge and has a direct effect on our state of well being - pills won't save us - only the human spirit can do that.
 
It is sad when that happens, and unfortunately telling someone to pull their socks up and get on with life is rarely the answer.

I don't think your example is perfect though as sure he would have been dead sooner with out the medication? I wouldn't say either one is in charge just that they are a delicate balancing act.
 
I think that is far too simplistic. I do agree that a positive attitude is wonderful, but for many people is simply isn't enough. Have you considered how your post may make someone who is seriously ill feel? To be told that pills can't save them, only positive attitude can - well what a kick in the guts that would be to someone who has the best attitude in the world, but who just isn't winning against an illness. They are going to blame themselves for not being positive enough - simply not the case for many, it is just that some illnesses can and will kill us, despite our attitude and despite medicine. Equally, very negative people will be cured through medicine alone. If your theory were true, we wouldn't need doctors, just people skilled in meditation and positive thinking.
 
Hear hear Emma - my mum had a fab attitude and did not believe she was going to die of cancer right up until the day she died.

My cats wholly agree with the superior dog. They have a very well trained human who they love very much. They do find it is best to let her think she is in charge though. She even types replies on HHO for them!
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Swine flu, mad cow desease, bird flu. Animals are fighting back ha ha.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its farmageddon.

[/ QUOTE ]


BAHAHAHAAHAHA love it! that really made me chuckle!
grin.gif
 
we can go round and round until we are blue in the face, my position still stands - whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant really.

and yes, Farmageddon indeed!
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Swine flu, mad cow desease, bird flu. Animals are fighting back ha ha.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its farmageddon.

[/ QUOTE ]


**steals for weekend to make self seem hilarious in front of friends**
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top