I'm a big fan of pokemon, but i'm also a strong believer in animal rights and against animal abuse, but i'm not so much of a big peta fan.
Peta is an organization that campaigns for animal rights their slogan "animals are not ours to eat, animals are not ours to wear, animals are not ours to use for entertainment, animals are not ours to experiment on, animals are not ours to abuse in any way" and while i love animals and i do respect peta's work, but it doesn't mean i necessarily agree with them.
First of all "animals are not ours to eat".
My mother is a vegetarian because she feels its cruel to eat animals, the problem with being a vegetarian is the nutrients you miss due to cutting meat out of your diet, many vegetarians (mostly women) suffer from anemia, it is possible to get these nutrients (such as protein and iron) from other foods such as beans, lentils, eggs and nuts but meat is more effective.
We are omnivores we eat both meat and vegetables I don't feel that not eating meat is necessary, though it is sad that animals get eaten, but animals get eaten in the wild by other animals too but i feel really needs to be addressed (which is one of petas mains concerns) is animals being abused and neglected by farmers. I'd feel much better about eating meat if I thought that the animals didn't suffer any unnecessary pain during life and that in some way the animal had an enjoyable life, i would also hate to think that lots of the animal went to waste, for instance a pig has so much to offer in the way of meat, you have the nice meat that everyone likes like bacon and ham, pork chops etc, then you have the meat that is less desirable like organs which can be still be eaten or used for science and then anything else can be made into dog food, i would rather have all of the animal used then for it to go to waste.
Secondly animals that are tested for medicine is in my opinion is necessary, my father works for GSK, at the site he works on they test animals, the company it self makes toothpaste, ribena, medicine's etc and according to my father (who doesn't work in the animal testing department) they are working on cures for terminal cancer and inherited diseases and that is the sort of animal testing i can agree with, as sad as it is to think that animals are being given diseases and tested but imagine how amazing it would be to be told you have terminal cancer and there is a cure, i can agree with that.
What i don't agree with is testing for beauty products, this type of testing was highlighted in the parody game when juniper sprayed your pokemon with perfume, i really don't see why you would need to do this any more, there must be a really long list of chemicals that are safe for humans i don't understand why you would go out looking for new formula's and chemicals to use when you have one's that you know are safe and works just as well.
I sort of agree with not wearing animals but at the same time i don't, its the same with testing animals for me, using real fur for coats and other items of clothing is pointless when you can get good quality fake fur, i would prefer real fur from a farm that treats its animals well and went on to use the animal for meat then having it poached in the wild if it came down to it but i would prefer fake fur, i feel slightly different about poaching as you don't know the effect it has on the environment, what if a vixen was shot and her babies died there would be less foxes and this would upset the ecosystem and further more you know the animal wasn't tame and did not trust humans and gave a fight and chase which is cruel, of course killing anything for a fashion statement is cruel anyway.
As for entertainment as long as the animal is well treated and looked after accordingly i believe its fine.
Our knowledge of animals has grown significantly over time, we know their requirement and how they behave, we now know that keeping an elephant in a circus cage is inappropriate (and to be honest i think that's obvious) we now know of ways to train animals effectively without abusing them (horse whispering for instance).
The game was a real eye opener but didn't feel it was the right way about it, it probably made a lot of pokemon fans think about the morality of the game's they play, but really pokemon isn't to blame for animal cruelty, sure some kids who play it might grow up to be animal abusers, but i think that is down to the type child and think they would grow up like that regardless of what game they play or film they watch, if that was the case i'm sure there'd be more violent people out there, i don't think games or films or anything like that really effects a child's development (of course it's not wise to buy an eight year old call of duty) but i really don't see how games like pokemon or mario could encourage animal abuse.
While the game is an eye opener and it is an interesting way of getting a message out, but i feel its a money waster, surely it would be more effective to spend money educating children and push for better animal welfare laws and cracking down on real animal fighting rather than using that money to make a game criticising where you fight made up animals, it felt more like an attack than a campaign.
First of all "animals are not ours to eat".
My mother is a vegetarian because she feels its cruel to eat animals, the problem with being a vegetarian is the nutrients you miss due to cutting meat out of your diet, many vegetarians (mostly women) suffer from anemia, it is possible to get these nutrients (such as protein and iron) from other foods such as beans, lentils, eggs and nuts but meat is more effective.
We are omnivores we eat both meat and vegetables I don't feel that not eating meat is necessary, though it is sad that animals get eaten, but animals get eaten in the wild by other animals too but i feel really needs to be addressed (which is one of petas mains concerns) is animals being abused and neglected by farmers. I'd feel much better about eating meat if I thought that the animals didn't suffer any unnecessary pain during life and that in some way the animal had an enjoyable life, i would also hate to think that lots of the animal went to waste, for instance a pig has so much to offer in the way of meat, you have the nice meat that everyone likes like bacon and ham, pork chops etc, then you have the meat that is less desirable like organs which can be still be eaten or used for science and then anything else can be made into dog food, i would rather have all of the animal used then for it to go to waste.
Secondly animals that are tested for medicine is in my opinion is necessary, my father works for GSK, at the site he works on they test animals, the company it self makes toothpaste, ribena, medicine's etc and according to my father (who doesn't work in the animal testing department) they are working on cures for terminal cancer and inherited diseases and that is the sort of animal testing i can agree with, as sad as it is to think that animals are being given diseases and tested but imagine how amazing it would be to be told you have terminal cancer and there is a cure, i can agree with that.
What i don't agree with is testing for beauty products, this type of testing was highlighted in the parody game when juniper sprayed your pokemon with perfume, i really don't see why you would need to do this any more, there must be a really long list of chemicals that are safe for humans i don't understand why you would go out looking for new formula's and chemicals to use when you have one's that you know are safe and works just as well.
I sort of agree with not wearing animals but at the same time i don't, its the same with testing animals for me, using real fur for coats and other items of clothing is pointless when you can get good quality fake fur, i would prefer real fur from a farm that treats its animals well and went on to use the animal for meat then having it poached in the wild if it came down to it but i would prefer fake fur, i feel slightly different about poaching as you don't know the effect it has on the environment, what if a vixen was shot and her babies died there would be less foxes and this would upset the ecosystem and further more you know the animal wasn't tame and did not trust humans and gave a fight and chase which is cruel, of course killing anything for a fashion statement is cruel anyway.
As for entertainment as long as the animal is well treated and looked after accordingly i believe its fine.
Our knowledge of animals has grown significantly over time, we know their requirement and how they behave, we now know that keeping an elephant in a circus cage is inappropriate (and to be honest i think that's obvious) we now know of ways to train animals effectively without abusing them (horse whispering for instance).
The game was a real eye opener but didn't feel it was the right way about it, it probably made a lot of pokemon fans think about the morality of the game's they play, but really pokemon isn't to blame for animal cruelty, sure some kids who play it might grow up to be animal abusers, but i think that is down to the type child and think they would grow up like that regardless of what game they play or film they watch, if that was the case i'm sure there'd be more violent people out there, i don't think games or films or anything like that really effects a child's development (of course it's not wise to buy an eight year old call of duty) but i really don't see how games like pokemon or mario could encourage animal abuse.
While the game is an eye opener and it is an interesting way of getting a message out, but i feel its a money waster, surely it would be more effective to spend money educating children and push for better animal welfare laws and cracking down on real animal fighting rather than using that money to make a game criticising where you fight made up animals, it felt more like an attack than a campaign.
No comments:
Post a Comment