PUT EXTRA MONEY IN YOUR POCKET
https://www.ebates.com/r/SYBIL414?eeid=29041

Jane Goodall

Hunting/Farming/Taxidermy, any topic that may get heated debate.

WARNING things may get a bit rougher here than the other forums.

Moderators: Ash, TamanduaGirl

User avatar
Peacefulward
Posts: 579
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2016 4:59 pm
Location: North Carolina

Jane Goodall

Postby Peacefulward » Sun Jul 24, 2016 7:33 am

Last year for school I had to do an essay on Jane Goodall. While I was researching her, I noticed that she really anthropomorphizes the animals. She doesn't want apes or moneys "in captivity", which is really vague but still suggests that she doesn't support captive breeding. She also want human rights for great apes! :roll:

I remember having a lot of respect for her originally, since y'know, she was the expert. But it turns out she's an animal rights activist just pushing her agenda, calling farm animals "domestic slaves" and trying to push veganism onto people. Even dropped the petty "you cannot say you love animals if you eat meat!" statement. :lol:

I think she's done good work, both scientifically and from a conservation standpoint, but what she's focusing on these days isn't really doing anything to help. Now she's mostly sitting back and fighting for animal rights.
5 Dogs, 2 cats, 2 leopard geckos, 1 guinea pig, 1 axolotl, and a coatimundi currently in my family. :)

Exotic "wishlist": red fox, arctic fox, gray fox, bat eared fox, fennec fox, mink, muntjac deer, owl (any species).
User avatar
Ana
Posts: 997
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:41 pm
Contact:

Re: Jane Goodall

Postby Ana » Sun Jul 24, 2016 7:54 pm

Like everyone else, I have no idea what any other mammal is 'truly' experiencing. To suggest that we are somehow 'special' in our ability to
register fear, pain, isolation, is absurd. I suggest there are little to NO emotional differences between toddlers, profoundly disabled humans
, and other higher primates. They are operating at the same levels, with the same central nervous system, performing at the same level
cognitively. To subject any of them to torment, isolation, or death, is to be a violent criminal. They are equally deserving of legal
protection, they are equally entitled to freedom from wrongful confinement, undue pain and distress, skullcapping, intentional infliction of
disease, torture, isolation and wrongful death.

If you follow the ideals of Dr. Goodall, you may be inconvenienced. If she (and I, and others) are incorrect, you have performed unnecessary acts
of kindness and consideration. Are you comfortable with that possibility?

If you follow the ideals of those who use animals in whatever means benefits them most, and are incorrect, you are a slaver, a collaborator,
and a monster. Are you comfortable with that possibility?

If we're going to be in the position of guessing, doesn't it seem the better alternative to guess on the side of decency?
User avatar
TamanduaGirl
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 10336
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:42 pm
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Jane Goodall

Postby TamanduaGirl » Sun Jul 24, 2016 8:41 pm

Yep anti-exotic pet of any sort.

"you cannot say you love animals if you eat meat!" And the next step of that is you can't have pets that eat meat. I mean at least if you eat meat it's for your own survival but if you have pet, which is unnecessary(and according the Ar doctrine, slavery) then you are having animals killed just for your hobby of having a dogs, cat, raccoon. I mean if you really feel meat is evil how can any justify CHOOSING to have an animal that needs to eat meat. But they want to end all pet breeding anyway. And really they don't want herbivores either, even one pet in billions abused would be too many the only way to prevent that is ban them ALL from any human contact ever.
User avatar
Peacefulward
Posts: 579
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2016 4:59 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Jane Goodall

Postby Peacefulward » Sun Jul 24, 2016 8:46 pm

Ana wrote:Like everyone else, I have no idea what any other mammal is 'truly' experiencing. To suggest that we are somehow 'special' in our ability to
register fear, pain, isolation, is absurd. I suggest there are little to NO emotional differences between toddlers, profoundly disabled humans
, and other higher primates. They are operating at the same levels, with the same central nervous system, performing at the same level
cognitively. To subject any of them to torment, isolation, or death, is to be a violent criminal. They are equally deserving of legal
protection, they are equally entitled to freedom from wrongful confinement, undue pain and distress, skullcapping, intentional infliction of
disease, torture, isolation and wrongful death.

If you follow the ideals of Dr. Goodall, you may be inconvenienced. If she (and I, and others) are incorrect, you have performed unnecessary acts
of kindness and consideration. Are you comfortable with that possibility?

If you follow the ideals of those who use animals in whatever means benefits them most, and are incorrect, you are a slaver, a collaborator,
and a monster. Are you comfortable with that possibility?

If we're going to be in the position of guessing, doesn't it seem the better alternative to guess on the side of decency?


I wasn't saying that animals aren't deserving of human rights because they don't feel anything or deserve to be ruthlessly used. I think all animals are entitled to respect and care, and it's obvious to anyone who has experience with animals that they both think and feel pretty complexly. But I don't see how giving an animal human rights will help protect them, in my opinion there are much more beneficial ways to help, things that the big name AR organizations could be doing right now to help with all their funding.

I think either you're misunderstanding me here or I am. But I mean no harm or disrespect to animals, nor do I endorse it. I don't really know how you derived any of this from my previous comment either. But I'm sorry if I offended you. :shrug:
5 Dogs, 2 cats, 2 leopard geckos, 1 guinea pig, 1 axolotl, and a coatimundi currently in my family. :)

Exotic "wishlist": red fox, arctic fox, gray fox, bat eared fox, fennec fox, mink, muntjac deer, owl (any species).
User avatar
Ana
Posts: 997
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:41 pm
Contact:

Re: Jane Goodall

Postby Ana » Mon Jul 25, 2016 12:11 am

I don't get offended. I think that's a sign of a weak mind, to be 'offended' by different ideas and opinions. Everybody is entitled
to an opinion, and to speak on it. How else can we learn new stuff? <3

When we discuss basic rights for primates, it's about putting an end to the most egregious abuses inflicted on primates behind
the closed doors of vivisection labs in this country, and other countries. When activists began infiltrating these facilities to provide
video evidence of shocking abuse, the Animal Enterprise Act was quickly enacted to make everything from simple vandalism (gluing
locks, spray paint) to recording footage of abuses in labs and slaughterhouses not just a crime, but a 'terror' offense that can be
prosecuted in the same way actual murdering terrorists are prosecuted. The priority of money over decency has always been
transparent and staggering, but this sort of clamp down is alarming to anyone who follows law. This has resulted in young vandals
spending years in prison for nonviolent crimes, which is perhaps the worst part.

There are a lot of college kids and ignoramuses who give AR, feminism, veganism, etc a bad name. They blow things out of
proportion, exaggerate grotesquely, and generally behave like unreasonable crazies. In reality, it's a large, diverse group of
people with different priorities. Stopping the torture and wrongful imprisonment of primates does not equate to jeopardizing
our rights to raise and care for animals in our homes, which pretty much even the most zealous AR groups don't contest.

The cost to "big pharma" to create computer simulation laboratory testing will not be small. The horrific implements of restraint
and torture were not cheap, and they are certainly hesitant to stop using them. As consumers force the issue, refusing products
that are 'tested' using torture, we will see more lab upgrades, training updates, and format changes. Of all the industries out
there, pharma can afford these changes more than most. That they'd have to be forced by law to do so is the sad part.

I will not link photos, videos or accounts of what transpires in these facilities. Some of it is so horrific as to permanently damage
vulnerable people, and I don't support graphic image assaults as protest. If you are interested in learning about the history of
vivisection, and how the public learned it existed, it's all over the internet, but be careful - there are things you can never unsee.
<3
User avatar
Peacefulward
Posts: 579
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2016 4:59 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Jane Goodall

Postby Peacefulward » Mon Jul 25, 2016 1:52 am

Ana wrote:I don't get offended. I think that's a sign of a weak mind, to be 'offended' by different ideas and opinions. Everybody is entitled
to an opinion, and to speak on it. How else can we learn new stuff? <3

When we discuss basic rights for primates, it's about putting an end to the most egregious abuses inflicted on primates behind
the closed doors of vivisection labs in this country, and other countries. When activists began infiltrating these facilities to provide
video evidence of shocking abuse, the Animal Enterprise Act was quickly enacted to make everything from simple vandalism (gluing
locks, spray paint) to recording footage of abuses in labs and slaughterhouses not just a crime, but a 'terror' offense that can be
prosecuted in the same way actual murdering terrorists are prosecuted. The priority of money over decency has always been
transparent and staggering, but this sort of clamp down is alarming to anyone who follows law. This has resulted in young vandals
spending years in prison for nonviolent crimes, which is perhaps the worst part.

There are a lot of college kids and ignoramuses who give AR, feminism, veganism, etc a bad name. They blow things out of
proportion, exaggerate grotesquely, and generally behave like unreasonable crazies. In reality, it's a large, diverse group of
people with different priorities. Stopping the torture and wrongful imprisonment of primates does not equate to jeopardizing
our rights to raise and care for animals in our homes, which pretty much even the most zealous AR groups don't contest.

The cost to "big pharma" to create computer simulation laboratory testing will not be small. The horrific implements of restraint
and torture were not cheap, and they are certainly hesitant to stop using them. As consumers force the issue, refusing products
that are 'tested' using torture, we will see more lab upgrades, training updates, and format changes. Of all the industries out
there, pharma can afford these changes more than most. That they'd have to be forced by law to do so is the sad part.

I will not link photos, videos or accounts of what transpires in these facilities. Some of it is so horrific as to permanently damage
vulnerable people, and I don't support graphic image assaults as protest. If you are interested in learning about the history of
vivisection, and how the public learned it existed, it's all over the internet, but be careful - there are things you can never unsee.
<3


I too believe that scientific experimentation on monkeys (and animals in general) is horrid and highly unnecessary. I appreciate the fact that you didn't link any pictures, I also think it's a petty "gross out" tactic used far too often. I know a bit about the things that are tested on animals, and the procedures they go through, it's terrible- especially considering that humans are advanced enough to find better, more efficient ways to advance in research.

I was generally thinking about animals and primates in the wild, concerning human rights. I don't think giving them those rights can help, unless it warrants absolute protection over them and their environment to mitigate habitat loss and poaching. That would be extremely difficult, expensive, and time consuming to do.

I'd love to hear your opinion on what could be changed or implemented to help animals (domestic and wild). Always love hearing new ideas. icon-smile
5 Dogs, 2 cats, 2 leopard geckos, 1 guinea pig, 1 axolotl, and a coatimundi currently in my family. :)

Exotic "wishlist": red fox, arctic fox, gray fox, bat eared fox, fennec fox, mink, muntjac deer, owl (any species).
User avatar
Ash
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7917
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2010 11:38 am
Location: Utah

Re: Jane Goodall

Postby Ash » Mon Aug 08, 2016 1:58 pm

Don't like her. I lost all respect for her.
3 red fox, 4 pectinata iguanas, nile monitor, BW tegu, sailfin dragon, leachie gecko, 6 snakes, 2 salamanders, 3 tarantulas
User avatar
caninesrock
Posts: 2076
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 9:59 am
Location: Texas

Re: Jane Goodall

Postby caninesrock » Tue Aug 09, 2016 11:12 pm

I'm inspired by her studying of animals in the wild but I think wanting to give chimps human rights is a little extreme. Do I believe its wrong to experiment on chimps? Absolutely. But is giving them human rights the only way to stop them from being experimented on? Absolutely not. I believe all animals have a right not to be subjected to unnecessary pain, suffering, or death, but I don't believe they deserve all the same rights as humans. For example, keeping a non-human animal as a pet is not slavery despite what some AR folks claim. Also, animals obviously shouldn't have the right to vote or drive cars because that would be a mess. ;)

So, yes, I believe that animals have some rights, but I don't think they should be considered equal to humans and have all the same rights because there are many things humans can do that animals can't.

So to sum up, I support the work Jane Goodall has done with the animals in the wild and that she wants to end testing on chimps, but I don't support the fact that she wants to give them human rights as I think that's going overboard.
Exotic Wishlist: high content wolfdog or wolf,low to mid content wolfdog, Coyote, Coydog, Black-backed Jackal, New Guinea Singing Dog, Red Fox, Gray Fox, Mink, Raccoon, Coati,and Kinkajou.

Domestic Wishlist: dogs, cats, ferrets, donkey, mule
User avatar
Juska
Posts: 2180
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 10:08 am
Location: Pennsylvania, US
Contact:

Re: Jane Goodall

Postby Juska » Wed Aug 10, 2016 7:31 pm

Monkeys and apes are not humans. Giving them human "rights" makes no sense. Pretty sure a chimp doesn't give a darn about freedom of religion or his right to own property.
Pet parent of Emo the border collie mix, Conte the schnoodle and Namira the harlequin cat!
User avatar
Ash
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7917
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2010 11:38 am
Location: Utah

Re: Jane Goodall

Postby Ash » Sun Aug 14, 2016 12:59 am

I'll rephrase my answer from above. She has certainly brought to light so many amazing things about chimps. I think without her, chimp behavior research would have gone unnoticed for years until she started living with them. She was really amazing in what she did with her work and research. I do respect that.

I don't like this weird political twist she's taken. Don't like the animal-rights side of her that's coming out. She should keep to her research and studies, sharing more great info about these animals instead of wasting her time trying to give chimps the same rights as people.

The problem is most people don't realize the terminology here when the words "rights" is used. There is a difference between an animal's welfare rights, vs giving it "rights" (in other words, human rights). It's semantics. I think we obviously can all agree that animal welfare laws should be enforced. But I think most can agree that chimps aren't humans and don't need human rights--like Juska mentioned above.
3 red fox, 4 pectinata iguanas, nile monitor, BW tegu, sailfin dragon, leachie gecko, 6 snakes, 2 salamanders, 3 tarantulas
User avatar
Juska
Posts: 2180
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 10:08 am
Location: Pennsylvania, US
Contact:

Re: Jane Goodall

Postby Juska » Mon Aug 15, 2016 1:32 pm

I think they get to the first part that says something like "All humans should be free from suffering, have a right to happiness, etc., etc.," and then they skip over all the rest that absolutely does not apply to animals that aren't humans. Like marriage/work/land ownership/religion rights.

It's like people have no concept that we could implicate laws for the WELFARE of animals other than giving them the exact same rights as humans.

That's akin to saying "Well everyone should have the right to drive a car, because reasons, and to be equal let's give a CDL with P/S/H/X/N/T endorsements to every human being on the planet". Completely unnecessary and complicated.
Pet parent of Emo the border collie mix, Conte the schnoodle and Namira the harlequin cat!
User avatar
Peacefulward
Posts: 579
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2016 4:59 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Jane Goodall

Postby Peacefulward » Tue Aug 16, 2016 12:42 am

We all want what's best for our animals. I feel like most people, at some point, are lead astray and follow their personal feelings instead of reality and facts. AR organizations just exploit these emotions with their propaganda and such. icon_confused.gif
5 Dogs, 2 cats, 2 leopard geckos, 1 guinea pig, 1 axolotl, and a coatimundi currently in my family. :)

Exotic "wishlist": red fox, arctic fox, gray fox, bat eared fox, fennec fox, mink, muntjac deer, owl (any species).
User avatar
Ash
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7917
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2010 11:38 am
Location: Utah

Re: Jane Goodall

Postby Ash » Tue Aug 16, 2016 6:02 pm

Peacefulward wrote:We all want what's best for our animals. I feel like most people, at some point, are lead astray and follow their personal feelings instead of reality and facts. AR organizations just exploit these emotions with their propaganda and such. icon_confused.gif


Yeah, I agree with that for sure. It's happened to lots of people who used to be in the private sector.
3 red fox, 4 pectinata iguanas, nile monitor, BW tegu, sailfin dragon, leachie gecko, 6 snakes, 2 salamanders, 3 tarantulas
User avatar
Nìmwey
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 11:17 am
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: Jane Goodall

Postby Nìmwey » Sat Nov 26, 2016 10:35 am

She may know her stuff on chimpanzees and other apes, but she's pretending to be an expert on all animals, including dolphins and elephants, and the media is gobbling it up. Because of that, I've lost all respect for her. Just another AR-shill.
My main interest is in parrots, dogs, toothed whales and snakes.
Future animals I want to have when we have land are camels, wolfdogs/wolves, coyotes or jackals, striped hyena or aardwolf. Also poultry, rabbits water buffalo and/or yak for livestock.
TexasYankee
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 3:27 am

Re: Jane Goodall

Postby TexasYankee » Sun Nov 27, 2016 2:32 am

Jane Goodall and animals other than chimps is like physicists in fields other than physics.

Return to “Controversial ANIMAL Topics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest