Hi guys,
I am wandering what you think about this idea.
http://www.care2.com/causes/animal-welfare/blog/iranian-lawmakers-c...
So who is speaking up for the animals in this case? The owners or the government?
Permalink Reply by Fruitman on Ad. 1.
Prad, but that is a problem in ALL societies. Please don't tell me there are no similar statements at Canadian, Indian, German and Mozambique's SPCA websites.
But that is neither a DATA nor anything to do with history.
So pelase provide some proper data about the bad treatment of animals in Iran.
Prad, what you call evidence is nothing but your assumptions. You have NO evidence at all.
The links you posted. Beautiful. It would be great to see those animals free.
And the last guy in teh movie probably only wanted to get his dinner.
But that's just applying our point of view to everything. A blind man would tell you everything looks black because that's his world. Some people are trying to give names to the behaviors of animals. I don't think we should do that without being able to communicate with them
Doing so would mean that the dog I am taking care of is a psycho murderer. She kills on average a bird or two a week. Just for sport as she does not want to eat them. She also violently attacks all other dogs and macaques. When she had pups (I found out about the pregnancy the day I went to fix her) the pups would fight for access to milk. There were 9 of them and only 8 nipples. If not my daily assistance the weakest at the beginning would not survive a week. When they started with dry food same thing happened. A violent fight. No friendship amongst brothers and sisters. To make sure all ate something I had to divide them into smaller groups.
This is the reality. Not a video of selected beautiful shots.
How can animals have those concepts if those are only names given by us to not defined things which differ not only from culture to culture but from person to person. I bet our definitions of love or friendship will be different. So how can you apply something to animals if has not been defined. This way you can apply everything.
it's not an assumption because you've been clearly cheerleading the effort.
Sorry Prad, but don't like when someone accuses me of doing something I did not. That's like punching below the waist line.
Permalink Reply by PK on Prad,
This is a good story from the quran in regards to the dog and the cave dwellers.
There are many problems in Muslim culture that stem from following hadith. The Quran was consistenly coming from one source Muhammad at the time, and has less controversy.
Many of the hadith were written down more than a hundred yearsafter the passage of Muhammad, there were many authors, and yes, a lot of bias has been interwoven.
Peace, PK
Permalink Reply by pradtf on Many of the hadith were written down more than a hundred yearsafter the passage of Muhammad, there were many authors, and yes, a lot of bias has been interwoven.
ya i think that happens a lot in most religions - i guess in computer terminology it's call "upgrading". :D
the bible has been rewritten so many times it's hard to know what is what anymore. there were even 'vernacular' versions produced because the general populace couldn't read the high standard hebrew. i vaguely recall that the most recent rewrite actually took place only a few decades ago.
in friendship,
prad
Permalink Reply by PK on Prad,
LOLs on the upgrading! And some upgrades create more bugs, viruses, and problems than they solved;)
I think one of those bible versions was called the New International Version, of which I believe there have been several version. Why are the newer translations of the Bible missing verses?
One of these versions had actually left out some bible verses that were originally in the King James Version, and created quite the uproar. I might be wrong, but I believe the King James Version of the Bible was translated to suit the current theology of the time and was an effort to promote the schizoid concept of the trinity.
If the trinity was so important, why didn't god and or Jesus teach us directly about it? Why are Christians taught to just have faith, and or try to find the idea of trinity in the context clues?
Anyways, I know, going of topic again, but good thoughts.
Peace, PK
Permalink Reply by pradtf on One of these versions had actually left out some bible verses
ya this is par for the course.
and it is to be expected as per jaroslav pelikan's background on the matter:
"both the need to make the bible accessible to jewish believers who could no longer handle the hebrew text and the desire to give an account of the jewish religion to outsiders, interested or hostile, led to the production of the most influential of all translation of the tanakh, the greek septuagint, so named because seventy-two translators were said ot have worked on it ..."
(from pelikan's sacred writings series, the tanakh page xv)
so the word of god may have "lost something in the translation" as they say.
If the trinity was so important, why didn't god and or Jesus teach us directly about it?
the 'trinity' seems to appear in various religions (3 is a good number) though it doesn't appear in the bible. so your guess is as good as mine as far as the father, the son and the spook goes!
in friendship,
prad
Permalink Reply by Fruitman on so is it western to be rich? hahaha. what a BS. please. And who said it is about displaying wealth. Dude, please, by finding all this media junk you are not raising the level of this discussion. And I have work to do and don't want to reply to all those articles because they are just sensation seeking. I don't live in a world of sensations.
yes, a family member is more important than a dog. your baby and your dog are in a burning house. who do you save first? a dog, right?
I don't care what are the reasons of Iranian government. If I like green color and would like all the houses in my town to be painted green will I mind when the local govt introduces a law that all the houses should be painted green because that's the key to our salvation? Of course I won't mind!
Permalink Reply by pradtf on you didn't seem to notice that some of the words were from shirazi.
yes, a family member is more important than a dog. your baby and your dog are in a burning house. who do you save first? a dog, right?
i'd save both. what's the problem?
I don't care what are the reasons of Iranian government.
that is likely why you seem unwilling to see that there is a serious problem here. as kim asks here:
Fruitman, do you not feel it's important to question what will happen to these dogs instead of supporting something that could potentially be a massacre?http://www.30bananasaday.com/xn/detail/2684079:Comment:1165022
in friendship,
prad
Permalink Reply by Fruitman on I see the potential problem. But there is a potential problem during writing a reply to this discussion if you receive an electric shock via your laptop or a PC. Potential risks do not and should not refrain us from taking action. There is NO evidence those animals would suffer.
There are people in Iran and around the world that will do their best not to make it happen. Why not to give them a chance?
If not then how to solve this problem instead of accusing the government of wrongdoing before they even started?
Permalink Reply by pradtf on again, fruitman, your argument is that we don't really know what will happen to the dogs, so let's assume they'll be ok.
my argument is that
historically iran does not have a good record regarding animals (i've provided evidence here to that effect)
the motivation is political, not animal welfare based
the resources for aw is weak in iran (again evidence has been supplied)
therefore, the law should not be implemented until there are solid assurances made for the welfare of the animals.
If not then how to solve this problem instead of accusing the government of wrongdoing before they even started?
because the gov is engaged in wrongdoing. they are trying to separate dogs from their homes and family members ... and based on an anti-western political rant.
in friendship,
prad
Permalink Reply by Fruitman on The law has to go through legislation stages which I believe it did not even start, therefore it is not a final law. It is possible that proper paragraphs will be included to provide protection to those dogs. If not, then before it is put into action there will be time to opose. Not now, when we don't know much about it. The idea probably died somewhere in the process anyway. I wanted to discuss the idea of prohibiting the ownership of dogs, not the particular case in Iran.
I do not believe anything can be achieved by closing down the trade without removing the clients. As long as it is trendy to have a pet people will find a way to have one. But unlike in case of drugs or alcohol we are talking about people who obey the laws hence they would probably obey the ban too.
Prad, the dogs are not memebrs of any human family.
Permalink Reply by pradtf on I wanted to discuss the idea of prohibiting the ownership of dogs, not the particular case in Iran.
well this is a fine time to say such a thing. :D :D
we have no disagreement on this matter.
I do not believe anything can be achieved by closing down the trade without removing the clients.
you need to start at the right end though as explained. you don't take dogs out of their homes.
Prad, the dogs are not memebrs of any human family.
again, fruitman:
1. they are considered to be family members
2. they consider the people they live with to be family and the place where they live to be their home
3. the laws are heading towards catching up with the idea that pets are family
so to argue that dogs are not members of a human family based on biology (which is what i think you are doing), is irrelevant. biologically a husband and wife aren't family either (usually), but there are legal stipulations which permit this recognition. similar legal stipulations can easily be applied to pets (and may have already been done in certain places).
in friendship,
prad
Beatriz Alvarez replied to Beatriz Alvarez's discussion telling my parents i went raw in the group College VegansBeatriz Alvarez replied to Beatriz Alvarez's discussion telling my parents i went raw in the group College VegansBeatriz Alvarez replied to Beatriz Alvarez's discussion telling my parents i went raw in the group Beginners in a fruitarian/raw vegan lifestyle
© 2013 Created by TheBananaGirl.
Powered by
