URGENT-CA-PHS Shelter (Bay Area)

User avatar
KarasKavies
For the love of my girls!

Post   » Mon Aug 26, 2002 12:03 am


Maineland... did I use your name? I was addressing the entire thread. Have you read the entire thread?

Lynx... may I change my Hint of Lime name to either "Ms Evil Kara" or "Hothead Kara" You choose!

Nah, actually, neither fit...
Last edited by KarasKavies on Mon Aug 26, 2002 12:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

Maineland

Post   » Mon Aug 26, 2002 7:36 am


My apologies Kara if your comments were not directed specifically towards my post. The thing that ticked me off was that I felt I was being lumped into some catagory with NastyBreeder.

User avatar
Becky

Post   » Mon Aug 26, 2002 10:04 am


I´ve always heard that having a written conversation with several people at one time can lead to confusion, and, Maineland, that seems to be what has happened to you.

It is difficult to know who is speaking to whom on a forum. The best approach, in my opinion, is to take a breath, reread what is being said, and give each writer the benefit of the doubt.

I´m one of those many people who have been following this post, but staying silent, although I have become very emotionally involved. I´m called to post now because, as KK said, I also defend my friends. Kara did not deserve your comments. I´ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just misunderstood. If that is not the case, however, understand that Kara has many friends here.

pigpal

Post   » Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:26 am


I was under the impression that it was generally accepted that a poster´s reply was directed to the whole audience unless addressed specifically to a single poster by name. There are apparently quite a few posters who leap to take personal offence when none was intended.

Thus, I might write:

Kleenmama, concerning your misquote of my earlier post - I actually wrote:

Unfortunately, far too many Christians have interpreted this "word of God" to mean they can exploit animals as they wish, regardless of how they are treated.

The key word here is "interpreted". One of my main problems with organized religion (and you are right, this is not at all limited to the Christian faith) is that followers can interpret scriptures however they wish, to suit their own agenda. For example: to treat animals as commodities, discriminate against homosexuals or bar women from receiving equal status in society.

At no point did I write that mistreating animals is a tenet of the Christian faith. However, I have met many Christians who, in discussions concerning vegetarianism and the humane treatment of animals, have categorically cited the scriptures as evidence that animals were placed on Earth for humans to use. SOME Christians, "far too many" in my opinion, interpret this to mean animals are inferior and are not entitled to be treated with the respect due to sentient creatures. You may not regard these people as true Christians, but I can assure you that is exactly what they consider themselves.

To everyone: I apologize for any confusion over my posting using Pinta´s account. It was somewhat inconvenient to spend three weeks away from home delivering rescue guinea pigs. This was one of the more minor inconveniences of these past three weeks.

As for Teresa being a saint. Far from it. Yes, she works very hard to make life better for the guinea pigs that find their way into her rescue, and also for those she will never meet. Sometimes the frustrations and exhaustion show, in her rather blunt manner in dealing with those who complain and criticize her approach.

Due to a background in computers, a large part of Teresa´s efforts use this medium to bring guinea pig care issues to the attention of the general public. This has been hugely successful, but has also brought a downside - criticism from those who see it as seeking attention and acclaim, as well as those who don´t care for the message contained. To those who seek to criticize, I suggest they spend large amounts of their own time and money creating and publicizing websites to promote their particular messages, rather than knocking someone else´s.
Last edited by pigpal on Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

kleenmama
I GAVE, dammit!

Post   » Tue Aug 27, 2002 10:46 am


And Pigpal, MY problem with your post was that as soon as a "higher power" was brought into the discussion, you swung the critisism at Christians. I was merely pointing out that it is not only Christians that misinterpret, as you have now clarified. Thank you.

pinta

Post   » Tue Aug 27, 2002 3:25 pm


How do you figure she was swinging the criticism at Christians and not Muslims?.....Christians do not have the monopoly on a "higher power" and to assume that any comment re higher power must be referring to Christians does not take into account that billions of people who believe in a higher power are NOT Christians.

pigpal

Post   » Tue Aug 27, 2002 4:17 pm


Wait a minute! There were two parts to my original post...

1. Criticizing the concept of leaving the responsibility for the ultimate outcome of medically treating/not treating to a "higher BEING". Note: not "higher power".

A higher "being" usually refers to God, Allah or some such entity. A higher "power" encompasses the forces of nature or laws of science. A totally different kettle of fish which I accept we are sometimes unable to control, lthough we certainly can influence them greatly.

2. Criticism of SOME Christians, "far too many" who interpret the scriptures giving men dominion over animals to justify their lack of concern for animal welfare.

I have personally encountered self-professed Christians holding this opinion. I have NOT met any Hindus, Buddhists, or followers of other religions with similar views. That´s not to say they don´t exist, just that I´ve not encountered them.

To be fair to KM, I DID only mention Christians in my post and I can see why she may have thought I was only criticizing one particular faith.

pinta

Post   » Tue Aug 27, 2002 5:05 pm


Hmmm. A higher power is something mystical and unexplainable to me. Forces of nature is just nature. The floods in France I wouldn´t attribute to a higher power unless the French have been up to no good......okay, maybe nature is a higher force....

I don´t like the idea of a higher power as a being simply because it requires imagery that cannot represent all. Like the fact that God is always imaged as a white male. Too corporate boardroom to me. This excludes too many. I´d rather think of a swirling mass of energy than some person with arms and legs and genitals...........interesting concept.....does God have genitals or is he like Ken (Barbie´s guy). Uh oh....going to hell now......

User avatar
Ciaytee
Almost Inbred

Post   » Tue Aug 27, 2002 5:12 pm


Oh Pinta, you were going to hell long before you made that comment.

But since you´re going anyway, might as well enjoy the ride along the way.

User avatar
lisam

Post   » Tue Aug 27, 2002 5:28 pm


Pinta, I like your swirling mass idea. After all, shouldn´t God be able to assume any shape he/she wants?

When I make statements like that, my husband asks me to move away, so he doesn´t get hit by the lightning bolt.

pigpal

Post   » Tue Aug 27, 2002 5:29 pm


A higher power is something mystical and unexplainable to me You mean like math?

Replacing the image of a aging white male in a long robes, clutching a Palm Pilot (very corporate boardroom), I now have an image of Pinta spinning deliriously downward in a vortex of energy, while examining Ken carefully for telltale signs.

gpperson
Carpe Cavies

Post   » Tue Aug 27, 2002 5:42 pm


Did you all notice how the "new" posters seem to have disappeared?

Isn´t it strange that these posters are unable to have a civil debate of differing viewpoints and have vanished upon causing a situation in which others start to misinterpret previous posts?

Teresa - Great job! (As well as all of the other volunteers)

I will make a general statement that - most of the GuineaLynx regulars are truly caring and concerned for the well being of their gp companions
I have read many well reasoned posts. I think it is a shame that the welfare of gp´s is not the primary concern of ALL breeders. It seems that it is easier to fail the animal than to change the system. This is my opinion and I have only my limited experience to go on.

Post Reply