I've noticed that human tragedies, wherever they may be across the world, don't lead to as widespread of an emotional response on social media compared to when harm comes to an animal, especially domestic pets. On the one hand it shows that the general public have a relatively strong belief in animal welfare, but on the other hand it's depressing to think that a random dog in California can generate greater attention/outrage than widespread human injustices and suffering.

I have constantly mentioned this to relevant threads on this site just to be shut down.
An example is when that woman threw the cat in the bin yeah it was bad and unfair to the cat but more people were outraged at that than murders or mass killings etc where they quickly forgot and went back to daily routine - sad reflection of the world and social media imo

Reply 53

kkboyk

Original post by Joe Frazier

Proof? https://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2011/06/21/animal-research-is-helping-us-beat-cancer/?_ga=2.150249077.2136532041.1565650788-495426547.1565650788
Like I said (and as we all know), the cure to cancer already exists - it just isn't in the public domain in order for government to profit. Cancer = billions of pounds, and this isn't going to change anytime soon.

Err, there are far many different type of cancers (around 100s), with some already having a very high survival rate (breast, prostate, thyroid etc), some having early treatments and preventions. If the 'big bad' government and pharmaceuticals indeed had cures for all cancer (or even most), even ones based on generic drugs or cheap alternatives, it could figure out a way to package the molecules into a patentable therapy that would still make them loads of money (especially since the treatment is costly, people pay thousands for treatment). Wouldn't they pay even more for a cure if it existed?

Original post by n.a.xcv.s

If you guys followed the quran you wouldn’t even need to spend on cancer research charitys

Lol. If this is the case then muslim majority countries would have virtually no cancer.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 54

username4878202

When I was younger I'd get really upset at the thought of people giving their money to animals instead of human begins, especially children in horrible situations that had no control over their situations. I still don't understand it to be honest but I respect people's right to choose and avoid making judgment calls; so long as they are extending a helping hand what's there to really take issue with.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 55

username1539513

Original post by Wildstar

You said something about Islam being bad for society or something. I mean how and why you think this im not sure and quite alarmed.

I made a statement whereby I have implied that I believe Islam was not necessary for society. It is not my belief that Islam is beneficial for society; to understand why I think that; have a look at the Islamically dominated countries in the world today and actually read the Quran. Most people should be able to understand why I hold the opinion I do.

Nonetheless this is not a topic relevant to your OP and I do not wish to derail your thread. As a consequence this shall be my last response on this topic

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 56

gjd800

Original post by Wildstar

You said something about Islam being bad for society or something. I mean how and why you think this im not sure and quite alarmed.

She said that most Brits have no need for the Quran.

Reply 57

Wildstar

You said 'We' not I but okay cool. I am sorry you think like that. Muslims aren't aliens you know.. You have Muslim drs, politicians and public workers who all follow Islam and contribute to society.