I have no problem with people that want to save animals from unethical treatment. I have no problem with people who want to save the environment. But my question is when did animals and trees become more important than our brother man (and sister woman)?
God bless the members of PETA because even though I do eat meat, I am not a fan of fur clothing. But how many minks have given a human being mouth to mouth to save their life?
I also believe that the environment is in desperate need of help but how many trees have given blood to save a life?
Must we attack someone for not agreeing with our point of view?
I know this probably will not be received well, but I just want to know the answers.
2007-01-08 12:24:20 · 13 answers · asked by Phoenix Rising 6 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
I think some people go a tad overboard protecting animals.
Animal Planet featured a shelter in a state that bans euthanizing. If an animal is adoptable they cannot put it to sleep. If it isn't adopted, it spends the rest of it's life in a shelter. And they slowly go nuts. The employees said it was heartbreaking to watch. Some dogs do nothing but walk in circles all day. What a sad, cruel way for a dog to spend his life only to die anyway, but now old and alone.
That's OK. They're saving animals lives.
But don't use an animal to help save human lives.
Remember the commercial yrs. ago with a Dr. and a parent discussing a childs condition? The Dr said there's a new surgical procedure that could save him but it hasn't been tested on anything living. Would you want your son to be the first?
If I was a dog and given a choice, I'd rather be "humanely" used for testing new surgical procedures, then euthanized instead of being "saved" at the shelter.
The reality is we need animals for many reasons, like food, transportation, clothing, and unpopular as it is, we need them for education,
.
Everything on Earth has a purpose. This world is capable of providing for everyone.
The trick is to only take what you NEED. Like to hunt? Shoot only what you can eat. Cut trees for the wood you need, and plant a few for each one you cut. Want a big yard? Don't buy property with alot of trees!
All we need is common sense, not more organizations.
2007-01-08 14:50:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree to some extent, but only to some extent. You asked when did it become more important than our fellow human beings to care about the environment... I think when we realized there is a danger that our environment could be permanently damaged and that could actually endanger humanity. People usually have a short-term focus, so giving blood could seem more important than a long-term global solution to the environment.
The environment, animals and people are closely interrelated. Giving blood to save a life doesn't matter too much if that "saved" person could be killed over the next 100 years by hurricanes, global warming, etc. I understand what you're trying to say about relating to people's immediate problems, but there are also very big environmental problems too.
2007-01-08 12:40:52 · answer #2 · answered by KatGuy 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure I understand why you think that PETA members or anyone who opposes the abusive treatment of animals or deforestation cares more for animals or plants than for people. What makes you assume that PETA activists might not also be Red Cross volunteers? What makes you think that someone who opposes deforestation wants to see people starve? In most cases, people who are active on behalf of animals are also active on behalf of people.
As far as protecting trees goes (and animals, too, for that matter), environmental protection is not only in the best interest of trees and animals, but in the interest of humans, as well. Do you not understand the correlation between healthy forests and natural habitats and a healthy world? If we destroy the environment, we are doomed to die as well.
People who support the rights of animals and the protection of nature understand that there is a connection between the environment and humans, and that in order to protect the second, we have to protect the first.
P.S. I'm not a PETA activist. I just think a lot of people use the whole "people are more important than animals" excuse to illogically discredit anyone who dares to stand up in support for animals (who cannot speak for themselves, after all) when in fact most people I know who are members of the SPCA or any other animals rights group are also regular contributors to various human charities as well.
2007-01-08 12:34:59 · answer #3 · answered by magistra_linguae 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You are right. The PETA people have noble cause but human beings are more important. That never makes abuse ok but you have a good point.
You should never lose your perspective. Just because a something is "your cause" does not mean it is the most important cause.
2007-01-08 12:35:58 · answer #4 · answered by Buttercup Rocks! 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Without the plants and animals, humans could not exist. Without humans, they would spread over the planet and make it a clean, beautiful paradise with widespread dangers but beautiful none the less.
2007-01-08 12:29:51 · answer #5 · answered by mrscmmckim 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Good points. I don't have a specific answer, but everybody loves a cause. And no one wants to sully their hand on people that are beneath them (it seems).
2007-01-08 12:32:39 · answer #6 · answered by Skanky McSkankypants 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No one should be attacked for not agreeing with someone else. Too many extremists
2007-01-08 12:30:59 · answer #7 · answered by Lolitta 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Thumbs up !
2007-01-08 12:29:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
well if we care and love about saving our own, why can't we save and love animals too, at least harmless pets?
2007-01-08 12:29:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
it's kind of hard to agree with something that is being shoved down your throat, I agree with you,we have a right to our opinions.
2007-01-08 12:30:03 · answer #10 · answered by glasgow girl 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋