Jilly Cooper on "weakest link"
02 March 2002, 05:54 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Plymouth
Posts: 3,079
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
O...M...G http://www.botanicalhaircare.co.uk/jilly.html
I didn't even let the pic scroll down all the way before I clicked it off. Don't EVER do that again Daz!
I didn't even let the pic scroll down all the way before I clicked it off. Don't EVER do that again Daz!
04 March 2002, 10:32 AM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: £1.785m reasons not to be here :)
Posts: 6,095
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote
To think that an animal charity should take precedence over a childrens charity is absolutley absurd.
No wonder there are so many child neglect cases with people giving fricking cats and dogs more care.
Daz is spot on, it's outrageous and shouldn't even contemplate debate.
Why Cem?
Child cruelty is caused by other human beings.
Animal cruelty is caused by human beings
Who's at fault there? Hmm... funny that, same on both counts. Human beings, that's who.
Don't even start on the "superior human race" argument. Who are you, or anyone else, to dictate whether animals or humans should have greater rights against unnescessary suffering and cruelty?. Or are you perhaps ok with animal cruelty? After all, they are just dumb animals
Many religions hold animals in higher reverence than humans. Who's to say they are wrong?
Its the individuals choice. If I, or anyone else, chooses to donate to an animal charity and not a child charity, that my choice, and its not for you or anyone else to criticise for that [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
There are child neglect cases because of the direct actions of other human beings, plain and simple, its got nothing to do with people giving cats and dogs more care
D
To think that an animal charity should take precedence over a childrens charity is absolutley absurd.
No wonder there are so many child neglect cases with people giving fricking cats and dogs more care.
Daz is spot on, it's outrageous and shouldn't even contemplate debate.
Why Cem?
Child cruelty is caused by other human beings.
Animal cruelty is caused by human beings
Who's at fault there? Hmm... funny that, same on both counts. Human beings, that's who.
Don't even start on the "superior human race" argument. Who are you, or anyone else, to dictate whether animals or humans should have greater rights against unnescessary suffering and cruelty?. Or are you perhaps ok with animal cruelty? After all, they are just dumb animals
Many religions hold animals in higher reverence than humans. Who's to say they are wrong?
Its the individuals choice. If I, or anyone else, chooses to donate to an animal charity and not a child charity, that my choice, and its not for you or anyone else to criticise for that [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
There are child neglect cases because of the direct actions of other human beings, plain and simple, its got nothing to do with people giving cats and dogs more care
D
04 March 2002, 12:29 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 7,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm all for giving to animal cruelty charities -- charities that will reduce the suffering/improve the lives of animals. IMHO there's a big difference between that and stumping up a monument to some animals that:
a) died 60 years ago
b) even if they were alive, couldn't read the words on the monument anyway nor understand its significance
a) died 60 years ago
b) even if they were alive, couldn't read the words on the monument anyway nor understand its significance
04 March 2002, 12:37 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diablo,
I’m not saying that animals aren't important, or that animal charities aren’t worthy, but I would take issue with anyone who said an animal should take precedence over a person. - it's at odds with my views, the views of the majority (I think), and more importantly, logic (again, I think). Doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to think it, just as I have the right to disagree.
I might well think that some people don't deserve to be treated as well as animals, but that's the price you pay for "civilised" society I guess.
Religion - well, probably best not going down that route - some religions consider mutilation and torture acceptable but how many people would agree with that?
My main problem though is that her choice had nothing to do with helping animals or humans on a constructive level. How many people who lost pets are going to be comforted by this memorial? If the message is that war is bad because war kills animals, then it’s redundant. If society can’t see that war is bad because it kills people, then what hope is there?
Basically, whilst I found the thing funny, I just think she wasted a prime opportunity to do some good, somewhere.
All the best,
Deano
I’m not saying that animals aren't important, or that animal charities aren’t worthy, but I would take issue with anyone who said an animal should take precedence over a person. - it's at odds with my views, the views of the majority (I think), and more importantly, logic (again, I think). Doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to think it, just as I have the right to disagree.
I might well think that some people don't deserve to be treated as well as animals, but that's the price you pay for "civilised" society I guess.
Religion - well, probably best not going down that route - some religions consider mutilation and torture acceptable but how many people would agree with that?
My main problem though is that her choice had nothing to do with helping animals or humans on a constructive level. How many people who lost pets are going to be comforted by this memorial? If the message is that war is bad because war kills animals, then it’s redundant. If society can’t see that war is bad because it kills people, then what hope is there?
Basically, whilst I found the thing funny, I just think she wasted a prime opportunity to do some good, somewhere.
All the best,
Deano
04 March 2002, 04:13 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 928
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I for one think that donating to an animal-related charity is a nice gesture (who she is and whether we like her books or not is totally irrelevant).
I have a direct debit to the RSPCA for £15 per month. Its the only charity I make any kind of regular contribution to - and I wouldn't expect to be criticised for it. Maybe some of you (you know who you are) would have me divert that money to a 'more worthy' charity of your own choice...?
I have a direct debit to the RSPCA for £15 per month. Its the only charity I make any kind of regular contribution to - and I wouldn't expect to be criticised for it. Maybe some of you (you know who you are) would have me divert that money to a 'more worthy' charity of your own choice...?
04 March 2002, 04:25 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andrew - Not a problem with that, I think the RSPCA is a very worthwhile charity and I would have no problems donating to it (and I think I have in the past). What I did find annoying was the over emotional cr4p that she was giving out by donating to a memorial for animals that are "brown bread".
D
D
04 March 2002, 04:35 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 928
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well, on that basis - why have a memorial for anything?
"dead = in the past = forget about it and move on"....that's not a theory I would subscribe to.
If we accept that memorials in general are appropriate (if not, then why even bother with gravestones?), then the fact that this particular memorial relates to animals should not be reason enough to criticise....
"dead = in the past = forget about it and move on"....that's not a theory I would subscribe to.
If we accept that memorials in general are appropriate (if not, then why even bother with gravestones?), then the fact that this particular memorial relates to animals should not be reason enough to criticise....
04 March 2002, 05:01 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, we need memorials to remember dead relatives and war memorials to remember those who died - and to hopefully stop it happening again. The aim of this charity just seems to be so narrow as to make it worthless.
I hope this IS something close to her heart, and maybe she gives potloads of her own money to more worthy causes, but then again maybe she just wanted to be controversial? Who knows?
I hope this IS something close to her heart, and maybe she gives potloads of her own money to more worthy causes, but then again maybe she just wanted to be controversial? Who knows?
04 March 2002, 05:13 PM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 928
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"those who died" - why shouldn't that include animals?
I don't want to turn this into another 'animal lover' debate like there was a couple of months back, but I do want to try to nail this "humans are the only species worth remembering" stuff - it isn't logical....
I don't want to turn this into another 'animal lover' debate like there was a couple of months back, but I do want to try to nail this "humans are the only species worth remembering" stuff - it isn't logical....
04 March 2002, 05:14 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree if that's "her thing" then so be it 
Anybody who saw the show though would have been as stunned as I was at the time
She obviously chooses the animal kingdom over the human variety
as her quote about men illustrates !! (see above)
Anybody who saw the show though would have been as stunned as I was at the time
She obviously chooses the animal kingdom over the human variety
as her quote about men illustrates !! (see above)
04 March 2002, 05:46 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andrew,
I just can't see the logic I'm afraid. Give the money to anti hunting, anti vivisection or any animal charity - do SOMETHING worthwhile with it.
Millions of animals are killed deliberately every day for food - these animals killed during the war were (AFAIK?) accidental.
The youngest person able to remember having an animal killed personally is proably about 60 years old - are they still grieving?
It's her personal choice who she gives the money to but I can't get with it. I'd love for someone with an actual interest, rather than just an opinion to comment, but I don't think there'll be many of them around (other than the lady herself).
Cheers,
Dean
I just can't see the logic I'm afraid. Give the money to anti hunting, anti vivisection or any animal charity - do SOMETHING worthwhile with it.
Millions of animals are killed deliberately every day for food - these animals killed during the war were (AFAIK?) accidental.
The youngest person able to remember having an animal killed personally is proably about 60 years old - are they still grieving?
It's her personal choice who she gives the money to but I can't get with it. I'd love for someone with an actual interest, rather than just an opinion to comment, but I don't think there'll be many of them around (other than the lady herself).
Cheers,
Dean
04 March 2002, 05:58 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 928
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dean,
I understand your point. Personally, I would probably not have built a memorial with the money. Like you say, I would rather see it go to an organisation more actively involved in 'live' animal welfare.
But....I still think a memorial like this is a nice idea, although I have to admit that the two separate opinions I've just expressed do not reconcile particularly well!
Andrew
I understand your point. Personally, I would probably not have built a memorial with the money. Like you say, I would rather see it go to an organisation more actively involved in 'live' animal welfare.
But....I still think a memorial like this is a nice idea, although I have to admit that the two separate opinions I've just expressed do not reconcile particularly well!
Andrew
06 March 2002, 09:25 AM
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the third world there are very few animal charities - those societies have rather more pressing problems upon which to direct their charitable efforts, such as failed harvests and consequent starvation, slum housing, poor sanitation, lack of medical care, child exploitation...
Maybe we should look beyond our shores before we decide how to prioritise our distribution of charity. I can't help thinking that funding memorials for animals, misguided anti-vivisection groups, and anti hunting charities is not the best way to achieve some good in the world.
But at the end of the day you can do what you want with your cash so who am I to get pious with Jilly?
Maybe we should look beyond our shores before we decide how to prioritise our distribution of charity. I can't help thinking that funding memorials for animals, misguided anti-vivisection groups, and anti hunting charities is not the best way to achieve some good in the world.
But at the end of the day you can do what you want with your cash so who am I to get pious with Jilly?
