Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Martina Herrera
Recent Activity
-
Martina commented on the article |
A key to the evolution of consciousness/conscientiousness is education--Stephanie you are correct in saying that this approach shows great promise of addressing the problem(s) at their origination.
I fail to see how punitive approaches "help"to relieve the problem, since it is exactly this mindset that causes much abusiveness to any form of life to begin with.
It is fairly well documented that extreme animal "hoarders"(along with extreme hoarders of anything) are suffering from severe mental illness, which will definitely not be addressed by the penal system.
There should be "consequences" for acts of cruelty and abuse, but first the definitions of these terms need to be clarified for all involved. Am I neglectful if I fail to provide my cat with a kidney transplant at the expense of feeding my children and keeping my home?
Some helpful consequences are community service, mandatory education, and mandatory treatment for mental illness. These have a demonstrated track record of alleviating and preventing child abuse, no doubt it would work for animal abuse as well. The amazing thing is that many of today's most effective educators in this field were once abusers themselves.
In addition, it is for all of us individulals that the laws are speaking for. We ourselves, by coming together, can develop systems and networks of care to assist animal owners with honoring their responsibilities. We have to stop assuming the laws and organizations such as HSUS are speaking for "us".
My feeling is HSUS ought to be the first prosecuted if such a law is enacted, for unconscionable cruelty to animals supposedly in their"care". Euthanizing puppies they were granted custody of , under color of law?
I would recommend a registry only if the individuals were also guilty of animal sexual abuse. -
Martina commented on the article |Alex said What makes human beings so special as to make our plight categorically more important than the plight of nonhuman animals?
I don't know, you're free to research that answer for yourself, but you're missing the entire point.
This attack and criticism on the Obama family's right to choose for themselves what type of canine compadre will suit all of them is an example of the underlying objectification virtually all humans indulge in. I'm not aware of any other species that does this, are you?
They can't just be a family making a choice, they are expected to be "trendsetters and rolemodels" to suit someone else's agenda(preferably yours).
I'm happy they found a family member they can all cherish for years to come.
If you want to rant against specieism, make your own blog.
I'll bet Stephanie's "senior dog" did not go all by himself to choose the rest of his pack members or make the arrangements to accept her "adorable pit bull" foster, nor are any of her pets writing this blog. -
Martina commented on the article |
RE Objectification of dogs and analogy comparing adoption of dogs to adoption of human children. Clearly, dogs are NOT children.
Is this blog a case of the pot calling the kettle black?
A large number of people think its morally unconscionable to give a home, attention and resources to a pet (i.e objectify) when there are tens of thousands of children in the US (and millions more around the globe) languishing in fostercare-shelters/homeless. Where's the blog on change.org that addresses this? You celebrate and sensationalize your own right to choose your morality and ethical stance , but would deny that to others? -
Martina commented on the article |
HH
I appreciate your kind thoughts towards both the humans and the dogs under discussion in this thread. Compassion for one should not be made at the expense of the other, otherwise it is not compassion, merely self-interest in disguise. -
Martina commented on the article |Soybeans are harmful unless processed--therefore not a natural food
-
Martina commented on the article |
The soybean is a low acid food and as such, is a good host for the breeding of harmful bacteria. The Chinese did not eat unfermented soybeans as they did other legumes such as lentils because the soybean contains large quantities of natural toxins or "antinutrients". First among them are potent enzyme inhibitors that block the action of trypsin and other enzymes needed for protein digestion. These inhibitors are large, tightly folded proteins that are not completely deactivated during ordinary cooking. They can produce serious gastric distress, reduced protein digestion and chronic deficiencies in amino acid uptake. In test animals, diets high in trypsin inhibitors cause enlargement and pathological conditions of the pancreas, including cancer.14 Soybeans also contain haemagglutinin, a clot-promoting substance that causes red blood cells to clump together. Trypsin inhibitors and haemagglutinin are growth inhibitors. Weanling rats fed soy containing these antinutrients fail to grow normally. Growth-depressant compounds are deactivated during the process of fermentation, so once the Chinese discovered how to ferment the soybean, they began to incorporate soy foods into their diets.
-
Martina commented on the article |
.........I (and millions of other people) eat soybeans all the time.
ONLY DIGESTIBLE AFTER PROCESSING--not a "natural" food
.........Potatoes are inedible until they're cooked
NOT TRUE (besides, I'm not the one who claimed soymilk was "natural") Love mashed potatoes, never claimed they were "natural" (don't care if they are or not)
.........Bonobos are small chimpanzees, and they are vegetarian
Bonobos are NOT Chimpanzees. They are, well, BONOBOs
(and Chimpanzees are not small humans)
.........When you decide to grow vegetables and grains intensively, you know full well there are animals living on that land, so please don't claim you "don't intend to harm them" by practicing your own murder. You just don't have the guts to look your pathetic victims in the eye. -
Martina commented on the article |
>>>>Everyone should give soy milk a try. As far as I know we are the only species that drinks the milk of another species and life long at that. Seems very unnatural.>>>>
How "natural" is soymilk? It's a man-made product, the beans are indigestible (and therefore inedible) without processing, so they are certainly not something a "natural human" would eat.
Our closest animal relatives are Chimpanzees,in fact we share a great portion of our DNA with them, we are far removed from Gorillas in the genetic family.
Chimpanzees kill and eat meat, gorillas don't. Go figure.
Humans have the best food-gathering tool of all -a brain--it allows us to create whatever size claws, fangs, and power we need.
What about all the animals displaced and killed by intensive vegetable/grain farming? A cattle pasture is a far more healthy place. -
Martina commented on the article |I think it's great to have multiple ways to mobilize the supportive community. I agree with the article, though, more needs to be done to involve the "grassroots" folks way ahead of time, and keep them involved.
Frankly, I was surprised GLBT rights were not upheld in this election, it seems a no-brainer for most Californians I know.
So, I think the article is correct.
The way the proposition was worded confused a lot of people, too i.e " Vote Yes for No", and it's entirely possible that many people who thought they were voting "FOR" GLBT rights voted "yes".
I know a lot of people --hmmmmm- who don't throughly read their voter pamphlets.
Since I'm not GLBT, I have to admit these issues aren't usually in the forefront of my consciousness, although I do support them.
Therefore, I rely on my friends who are affected by these laws to help me understand what's at stake , and to get informed/prepared when it's time to vote. I think there's a lot of potential voters in just my situation.
So just getting it out of the GLBT community to the general public needs to happen,sooner--- more so in smaller towns/areas where there might only be a handful of GLBT who understandably don't want to make themselves personal targets for potential backlash from hatemonger. The internet is a great way to do this, but also maybe hetero friends and relatives in front of their local supermarket handing out leaflets every so often for several months before the election. -
Martina commented on the article |Yes--it seems just plain goofy to me why, here in the USA,two consenting adult citizens of sound mind can't be allowed to form a civil Union/marriage for whatever reason they want to, and have it recognized as equally valid as any other.
While I personally think marriage/union should be for "love", if you want to civilly join because you two can't live without each other's home-grown vegetables---it's NONE OF MY FRICKIN BUSINESS--- please keep personal religious views out of other's bodies and homes.
