“They were ONLY trying to help the animals.” Really? How is staying silent over knowing that the “radiation research studies” actually do Harm the animals and DO NOT help them?
One of the reasons that was given to me so that I remain silent about one of Naoto Matsumura’s Chip-in fund collectors was that the person was only “trying to help the animals”. However, I am at a loss to see how that same person could ignore the photos of the starving cattle and think that this was how cattle normally look. How does one say that they were trying to “help the animals” when the SAME animals are being abused? How does one say that they are trying to help the animals when after saying that the money collected is to help ALL the animals, they find out that the money is to be used only to help cattle, that are all part of a Radiation research study? Yet, that person still remains silent.
The message about “only wanting to help the animals” was sent via this person’s friend. This is how the collective group works. There is a collective group that for one reason or another would try to hide the fact that Fukushima animals are being used for Radiation Research Studies or they try to “down play” the use of the Fukushima animals for research by saying that the animals are NOT subject to any harm. This group would also have people continue to donate to the groups that are involved in Radiation Research testing and would have everyone believe that this will benefit the animals because they will be allowed to live.
It is all a lie. A lie based on the choice of picking “friends” over animals. It is more important to them to support their friends that do testing on animals rather than picking the animals. And, they find that they have no problem saying to everyone that they are “for” the animals. How is that possible? It might be possible if they are “for” the rest of the animals that are not being used for “research studies”.
I have no problem choosing the animals over the person. When you do this, you are then met with anger. The argument given is that you have NO CONSIDERATION of this person’s feelings. That is the only part that they DO get right. I have no problem with NOT considering the “feelings” of a person that would USE animals for any type of research just as those people have No problem considering the feelings of the animals that they use for their research studies.”
It is pretty simple for me, but it seems not for others. They think that they can have a duality of supporting their friends that use animals for research and still say that they are “for” the animals. It is a concept that is unacceptable to me.
If you read about the Fukushima animals on other sites or pages, you may find nothing mentioned about Fukushima animals being used for Radiation research studies. It doesn’t mean that there are no studies being conducted and what I have written is all made up. It means that they have chosen “friends” over animals.
