SUPPORT AISLEYNE IN HER CHARITY CAMPAIGN

[Harvestgoddess]

juliejuliejulie said:

*wonders which part of meat we be talking about* ho hum

*wonders what part julie could be refering too *

[odm]

I dunno either...but this is buy one get one free...?

[Harvestgoddess]

odm said:

I dunno either...but this is buy one get one free...?

[juliejuliejulie]

[battybetty]

odm said:

With the greatest of respect.. this thread has gone awol.

The bottom line is. Support what you like. Some of us will and some of us wont. It in no way reflects on the support of Aisleyne as a person which will always be the the main priority on this forum.

With all respect duly returned, I felt it went awol when it started to become a discussion about who ate what, since to me it had no bearing on whether or not anyone would support a charity which performed animal research. But I still believe your are perfectly within your right to discuss whatever you wish despite my own bemusement. Charity and animal testing are highly evocative subjects and will prompt strong feelings either way. Many would shy away from comment here for that very reason.

I realise absolutely that you fully support Aislyene as a person Izzy. You have no need to justify that. I was in no way suggesting that anyone deciding to not support cancer research was, in any sense, failing to support Aisleyne as a person. I never said that, at all ! I simply stated that I respected her right to make her own choice about whatever charity she supported. The two things aren't the same and if you read, you will see I am actually agreeing 100% with that particular point. In fact, although my remark may be worded differently it still mirrored your own sentiment here:

At the end of the day, you picks your cause and you pays your money.

Today at 14.37 odm wrote:

We dont need political speeches and ayes here and everywhere its turning into something like the house of commons.

Sorry you feel that way about my words Izzy. I dont see myself as political in the slightest. Id hate to be a politician, Im not an activist and the only cause I ever supported actively was Aisleyne. But I do understand that to have an opinion on anything is to be political and like everyone else, there are things which will evoke a response from me. This thread clearly did so, and I wrote it down. Simple as! If in response to that people chose to voice agreement or indeed disapproval of mine or any post that is certainly nothing new to this thread or indeed to this forum. Its what we all do, yourself included. And there are those who have stated their support for your own views here too, which is only right and good, as Im sure we would both agree.

Im certainly not campaigning for any particular cause, I thought I just was doing exactly what everyone does here, which was to express my own opinion on the things Id read.

Granted, I did go on at length (as is my natural way : but as I stated, it was still only my own opinion. Nothing more, nothing less and I also thought Id made it quite clear that I placed no greater value on my own views than I do anyone else's. In fact, it was the main point I wanted to make. The fact that we all have the right to make our own choices (about charity or the like) without the need to justify our decisions. Its a deeply personal and individual thing and therefore it's impossible to measure the merit of our own decisions based on the values and preferences of each other, and it would be unfair and nigh on impossible to try. So Im not!

I already apologised for the fact that my post was so long that it appeared speech-like, a fact I genuinely hadn't noticed until I actually stopped typing! (I cant help it its waffling-on disease and I was born with it ) However, I clearly offended in the process, which was most definitely not the purpose. I have no desire to devalue your own or anyone else's views on the subject. On the contrary, I see them all as being of equal validity. Very much so. Vive la difference.

Our views simply differ in some parts on this subject, thats all. I think no differently of you for that fact and would be very disappointed if you thought less of me for expressing my own thoughts/feelings. You have voiced your own strong feelings, about charities in general, on a number of occasions. I may not always agree entirely with them but I do at all times very much respect you, your opinions and your right to express them, even when they apparently make me go a bit loco on the posting side. Im very happy to say there are far more occasions when I agree with you entirely and very few instances where Ive thought

[emptybox]

Whatever else this debate is achieving, at least it's keeping this thread at the top of the page, so anyone who hasn't heard about Ash's campaign will be given the chance to donate if their conscience and wallet allows.

[maringo]

emptybox said:

Whatever else this debate is achieving, at least it's keeping this thread at the top of the page, so anyone who hasn't heard about Ash's campaign will be given the chance to donate if their conscience and wallet allows.

Sssssh! You've given away my secret plan!

[Clash]

emptybox said:

Whatever else this debate is achieving, at least it's keeping this thread at the top of the page, so anyone who hasn't heard about Ash's campaign will be given the chance to donate if their conscience and wallet allows.

I was thinking the same thing. Whatever your views on what's being said, it has to be more interesting than "bump"!

There was a piece in battybetty's post that I wanted to reply to, before trying (no doubt futilely) to get this thread back on track. I believe it was towards the end of Chapter 3.

battybetty said:

Its a fine line to walk between right and wrong and opinions get very heated on such topics. I personally found the suggestion that prisoners should be tested on before animals quite offensive. It goes against all the basic human rights supported by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as upheld by our own common laws and it goes contrary to my own personal moral codes and those of Amnesty International, who like myself, also disapprove of the Death Penalty for the same reasons. I believe a life sentence should mean just that 'life', unless later proven to be innocent (which as we all know happens all too often).

The only way I would ever be in favour of testing on prisoners, even murderers, rapists and paedophiles, is if it was an option giving to them that they could decline. I find the idea of enforced testing as wrong and abhorent as you do. And that is the main reason I'm opposed to animal testing. (What I'm about to say may sound ridiculous to some of you, but bear with me.) If I knew that all the animals were fully aware of what the tests involved and what the risks were, had made an informed decision and signed up willingly then I would have no problem with it, but obviously that's not possible unless and until science discovers a way for us to communicate with them in a much more sophisticated manner than we can at present. If your answer to that is that animals are not intelligent enough to make that sort of decision anyway and it's therefore ok to test on them, couldn't the same logic be used to say that it's acceptable to test on, for example, a brain-damaged child? Would that acceptable? All of us could, if we wanted to, volunteer to take part in drug trials but few people do. Why? Because most of us do not want to risk the unknown, possibly unpleasant, dangerous or even fatal side-effects we may incur. If we're not prepared to do these things ourselves, what right have we to force others, be they prisoners or mice, to undergo them for us?

As I said before though, I'm not trying to dissuade anyone from supporting this charity. So: www.justgiving.com/aisleyne

What fool kicked off this debate by bringing up the subject of animal testing anyway?

[Harvestgoddess]

Well said and agreed

[maringo]

clash said:

If I knew that all the animals were fully aware of what the tests involved and what the risks were, had made an informed decision and signed up willingly then I would have no problem with it, but obviously that's not possible unless and until science discovers a way for us to communicate with them in a much more sophisticated manner than we can at present.

Apparently, this will happen within the next 50 years...

www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/science-forecasts/mg19225780.097-daniel-pauly-forecasts-the-future.html