Turn on thread page Beta

Animal Charity Should Be Banned watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I know this is gonna be controversial... but hey the forum's called "debate".

    In my opinion, all animal charities should be banned.

    No I don't get my kicks out of harming gerbils... ne worry pas. It really frustrates me though when I see in the paper that Auntie Flo (or whoever) has left her estate worth £2.7 million to a cat charity.

    Charities such as the NSPCC receive much less money annually than the RSPCA - this is a horrible reflection on out society. For £200 a blind African can have his or her sight restored with a simple cataracts operation. Yet (because of the availability of animal charities) there is little money donated to a really worth cause.

    What do you think?

    Adam
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by englishstudent)
    I know this is gonna be controversial... but hey the forum's called "debate".

    In my opinion, all animal charities should be banned.

    No I don't get my kicks out of harming gerbils... ne worry pas. It really frustrates me though when I see in the paper that Auntie Flo (or whoever) has left her estate worth £2.7 million to a cat charity.

    Charities such as the NSPCC receive much less money annually than the RSPCA - this is a horrible reflection on out society. For £200 a blind African can have his or her sight restored with a simple cataracts operation. Yet (because of the availability of animal charities) there is little money donated to a really worth cause.

    What do you think?

    Adam
    I agree with you in principal, but your measure would be a little drastic.
    What has always appalled me is that the RSPCA has Crown endorsement (ie the R is for Royal) while the NSPCC has not.
    While I realise that the royal prefix is merely ceremonial, surely the crown (or I suppose the government today) has its priorities wrong
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by englishstudent)
    I know this is gonna be controversial... but hey the forum's called "debate".

    In my opinion, all animal charities should be banned.

    No I don't get my kicks out of harming gerbils... ne worry pas. It really frustrates me though when I see in the paper that Auntie Flo (or whoever) has left her estate worth £2.7 million to a cat charity.

    Charities such as the NSPCC receive much less money annually than the RSPCA - this is a horrible reflection on out society. For £200 a blind African can have his or her sight restored with a simple cataracts operation. Yet (because of the availability of animal charities) there is little money donated to a really worth cause.

    What do you think?

    Adam
    So what your saying is that people ought to give money to charties that you deem worthy (such as the NSPCC)? However, they don't. So, in order to tackle this your going to ban a chairity type and restrict their freedom of choice? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Um, how dare you tell people what their charitable priorities should be? If people wanted to give to the NSPCC they would. If you want to force them to, start a child protection tax.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    So what your saying is that people ought to give money to charties that you deem worthy (such as the NSPCC)? However, they don't. So, in order to tackle this your going to ban a chairity type and restrict their freedom of choice? :rolleyes:
    Obviously they can't be banned. But in an ideal world they wouldn't even exist. I'd rather 100 dogs died than one child. In this country especially we have a totally warped view of what is important in this respect.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by englishstudent)
    Obviously they can't be banned. But in an ideal world they wouldn't even exist. I'd rather 100 dogs died than one child. In this country especially we have a totally warped view of what is important in this respect.
    You're judging where people's empathy should lie and it's totally unfair.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    They're charities! You can't ban a charity!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    You're judging where people's empathy should lie and it's totally unfair.

    Do you know what empathy means.......?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lehcar)
    They're charities! You can't ban a charity!
    Of course. I am talking about the ever-elusive ideal world I'd love to live in!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by englishstudent)
    Do you know what empathy means.......?
    Sorry, perhaps sympathy would have been a better word.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by englishstudent)
    Obviously they can't be banned. But in an ideal world they wouldn't even exist. I'd rather 100 dogs died than one child. In this country especially we have a totally warped view of what is important in this respect.
    In an ideal world, most charities would not exist. I will say that animals do not have rights, but that does not mean they can be subjected to anything people want. Animal charities are there to protect and help animals just as many other charities protect and help various things, whether it be children or even railways.
    In your argument, you suggest that only charities that help humans should be allowed, which would cause many conservation charities to be abolished.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by englishstudent)
    Obviously they can't be banned. But in an ideal world they wouldn't even exist. I'd rather 100 dogs died than one child. In this country especially we have a totally warped view of what is important in this respect.
    And I would rather see my freedom protected. This is where we differ.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    i think its up to people who they want to give their money to, be it a starving child or a donkey sanctuary. i may have different views of which is more deserving, but they are my own views and nothing more.


    (Original post by Beejra)
    I agree with you in principal, but your measure would be a little drastic.
    What has always appalled me is that the RSPCA has Crown endorsement (ie the R is for Royal) while the NSPCC has not.
    While I realise that the royal prefix is merely ceremonial, surely the crown (or I suppose the government today) has its priorities wrong
    this is interesting. in a politics lesson where i think we were discussing pressure groups, my teacher told us of a case of a couple who were abusing their child and their dog. they were reported by their concerned neighbours, and the RSPCA visited, and removed the dog from their care. however, the NSPCC tried to get involved, and while it was evident that the child was in danger, the NSPCC had no powers to remove them from their parents. Apparently, in the end, the child died. Obviously in this case their were failings by the police, social services and so on, but it is interesting that an animal charity seemingly had more extensive powers than one protecting children. i cant remember whether my teacher said this resulted in changes in the law or not.

    also i remember her saying that help the aged, a charity wich you may deem more worthy than the cat's protection league, announced that they had a huge surplus of money, more than they knew what to do with, they effectively had run out of thigs to spend it on.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by englishstudent)
    Of course. I am talking about the ever-elusive ideal world I'd love to live in!
    Surely in an "ideal world" there would be no animal abuse?

    So long as there is animal abuse, there will always be compassionate people wanting to give to charities. Therefore "banning" them is somewhat ridiculous.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Ok, maybe banning is too drastic.

    But a severe limitation of power wouldn't go amiss. Rather than targeting people and advertising the RSPCA should exist only to take donations.

    They actually target people and it really makes me sick. No one in their right mind could care more about cat welfare than child welfare.... could they?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by englishstudent)
    Ok, maybe banning is too drastic.

    But a severe limitation of power wouldn't go amiss. Rather than targeting people and advertising the RSPCA should exist only to take donations.

    They actually target people and it really makes me sick. No one in their right mind could care more about cat welfare than child welfare.... could they?
    I take it that you determine what is right?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by englishstudent)
    Ok, maybe banning is too drastic.

    But a severe limitation of power wouldn't go amiss. Rather than targeting people and advertising the RSPCA should exist only to take donations.

    They actually target people and it really makes me sick. No one in their right mind could care more about cat welfare than child welfare.... could they?
    surely it's up to them? some people hate children and some people get far more company and enjoyment out of a cat than a child in life, so maybe they may see cats as more deserving.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by englishstudent)
    Ok, maybe banning is too drastic.

    But a severe limitation of power wouldn't go amiss. Rather than targeting people and advertising the RSPCA should exist only to take donations.

    They actually target people and it really makes me sick. No one in their right mind could care more about cat welfare than child welfare.... could they?
    So you would be quite happy to sit by and watch some children torture a cat or set a dog alight?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by englishstudent)
    I know this is gonna be controversial... but hey the forum's called "debate".

    In my opinion, all animal charities should be banned.

    No I don't get my kicks out of harming gerbils... ne worry pas. It really frustrates me though when I see in the paper that Auntie Flo (or whoever) has left her estate worth £2.7 million to a cat charity.

    Charities such as the NSPCC receive much less money annually than the RSPCA - this is a horrible reflection on out society. For £200 a blind African can have his or her sight restored with a simple cataracts operation. Yet (because of the availability of animal charities) there is little money donated to a really worth cause.

    What do you think?

    Adam
    Some animals are more companionable, intelligent and trustworthy than most humans - is there any wonder people give all their cash to them?
    I think people should be able to spend their money however they want but I really do think the NSPCC is a worthy cause - so give generously!
    Actually, what I do think should be banned is those people who accost you in Covent Garden and work some kind of psychological-hypnotism "I'm the best mate you ever had, mate" routine on you in order to sign to a monthly standing order for a charity. There's something a bit creepy about using that kind of 'hard sell' for charity work.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eleenia)
    Some animals are more companionable, intelligent and trustworthy than most humans - is there any wonder people give all their cash to them?
    I think people should be able to spend their money however they want but I really do think the NSPCC is a worthy cause - so give generously!
    Actually, what I do think should be banned is those people who accost you in Covent Garden and work some kind of psychological-hypnotism "I'm the best mate you ever had, mate" routine on you in order to sign to a monthly standing order for a charity. There's something a bit creepy about using that kind of 'hard sell' for charity work.
    apparently the charity sees little of it aswell
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.