Western Values: Rescuing DOG "refugees" in Turkey but not humans

I couldn't believe this http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/golden-retrievers-turkey-1.3463905

When hundreds of thousands of refugees are suffering and dieing no thanks to Western interventions you have people rescuing DOGS all the way in Turkey instead. Where are people's priorities!? Especially those who constantly boast of superior western secular liberalism humanism. Is this humanism?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

BaconandSauce

People make their own decisions animals don't.

But yes this is a sign of superior western secular liberalism humanism.

But tell us what would you have done to them?

Reply 2

DiddyDec01

A dog isn't going to be a potential terrorist.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 3

Aj12

People are generally somewhat more able than animals to deal with their situations.

I'd also ask why someone needs rescuing from Turkey?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 4

Knowing Smile

Turkey isn't at war

They're not refugees anymore if they're in Turkey

Sounds good to me.

Original post by hussamhussam

Just be glad it wasnt the Chinese "rescuing" the dogs.

Reply 7

MildredMalone

Remember that humans are just another type of animal!

Reply 8

The Epicurean

Original post by hussamhussam

Firstly, this is a charity that specialises in rescuing dogs. This charity isn't the British Red Cross. A charity does what it intends to do, and this charity isn't a charity that helps people in crisis like in Syria. Secondly, this charity isn't rescuing any dogs at all, it only specialises in rescuing Golden Retrievers. So if they come across say a German shepherd that needs help, they don't help that dog. So this is an incredibly niche charity. Here is their website for you to view:

http://www.goldenrescue.ca/

This is a niche charity that seems rather odd to me if I am honest. The only individuals the charity assists are specifically golden retrievers. That said, this has nothing to do with Western, humanitarian or liberal values and to act like it does is absurd. But, I do think that the existence of such niche charities is something that is worth discussing and so I will discuss this.

There is a western humanitarian practice called "Effective Altruism" and the philosopher Peter Singer has written a great book on the topic. Basically it talks about how best to donate money to charity. The fact is that a lot of people don't really understand how they can most effectively spend their money in charitable ways. For example, many people will see adverts on the TV saying how if you donate so much every month, you can help to train a guide dog to help the blind. It sounds like a great charity, does it not? But Peter Singer raises an interesting point:

It costs about $40,000 to supply one person in the United States with a guide dog; most of the expense is incurred in training the dog and the recipient. But the cost of preventing someone going blind because of trachoma, the most common cause of preventable blindness, is in the range of $20-$100. If you do the math, you will see the choice we face is to provide one person with a guide dog, or prevent anywhere between four hundred and two thousand cases of blindness in developing countries."

But the fact is, even if we did make more informed decisions and found out the most productive use of our charitable money, it most likely would not be best spent helping Syrian refugees. Money is a scarce resource and if we are to use that money to save the most lives, our money would probably be best spent donating to a charity that gives mosquito nets to poor people. Ultimately, this is a very difficult issue, and there is no simple answer.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 9

Sciatic

^ brilliant answer up there.

/closethread

Reply 10

Reformed

Original post by hussamhussam

i suppose you could ask where is the islamic world - the richest of them are doing next to nothing to help their fellow muslims, instead pumping their cash into armed islamist groups from palestine to syria and beyond.

the west is not creating refugees, that is down to islamist groups, assad and probably now russia.

and finally as someone mentioned maybe flippantly, a dog given protection here is never going to turn on the country that helped it and try and blow up/behead/shoot people under some influence of islamist doctrine - its smarter than that. in islamic world animals are treated badly ( apart form those deemd 'islamically important' ( ie camels, birds of prey etc) and dogs in particular are abused there. in the west the oppsite is true

the west has accepted immigrants in the past ( and in the past ones from all over ie (non islamic) asia, africa, europe and south america have integrated well here. even some muslims here have integrated well- but the problems are often created when certain muslims try and push islamic ideas upon everyone else - be it socially or in politics.

the reality of the situation beyond your personal smokescreens is that the west has and is taking in piles of refugees as it should do ( but mixed in those that are not genuine) - whereas most of the islamic world as a whole ( certain members of which are causing most of these problems ) is doing comparatively little

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 11

queen-bee

Original post by EccentricDiamond

Dogs did not sexually assault hundreds of women en masse in Cologne

dogs are not responsible for rape gangs in rotherham etc

Dogs are not responsible for the horrendous amount of sexual assaults in scandanavia

dogs are not Europes biggest security threat

Dogs did not murder multiple journalists and concerns goers in France

Dogs are not turning many parts of Europe into no go areas