Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FAILINGKID)
    to sum it all up we humans are what caused these animal's trouble in the first place.
    I agree with this - there would be little need for animal charities without the impact of humans who cause their suffering.
    My degree is in Animal Welfare - does that make me a disgrace as I'm not studying to be a doctor OP?

    As Gandhi said:
    "The more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from cruelty of man."
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Why just target animal charities? What about arts, culture and heritage charities such as The National Trust, Royal Opera House or The National Gallery? What about people who chose to donate their money to these 'highbrow' charities rather than cancer charities and other 'human' charities?!

    Personally, I think people can donate to what charities they choose, but I'm curious whether YOU think arts and cultures charities are also a disgrace.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danadd9)
    Generally I have a higher regard for animals and insects than human life, I'd say why but it'd be a waste of time.
    A low amount of donations given to human charities go towards the actual cause, people only give money out of self-interest and an ego inflation anyway.

    EVERY charity exploits the audience's emotions for their profit, non-animal charities are in the same boat.
    wow, no **** :rolleyes:

    everything anybody ever does is done for the same reason. from raising your kids, loving your wife, buying a mother's day card etc. doesnt mean they cant be a force for good. it's only because these things offer the donator an emotional ''return'' that they do it....that's not a bad thing...no more than it's a bad thing that people go into business, with the aim of making a self interested profit, and hence provide people with employment and money to spend to help them live, hence helping THEIR slef interest.

    self interest makes the world go round, it's no big secret mate so dont try to make it sound all intelligent by giving your post an aura of mystique :rofl:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pocketfulofposy)
    Why just target animal charities? What about arts, culture and heritage charities such as The National Trust, Royal Opera House or The National Gallery? What about people who chose to donate their money to these 'highbrow' charities rather than cancer charities and other 'human' charities?!

    Personally, I think people can donate to what charities they choose, but I'm curious whether YOU think arts and cultures charities are also a disgrace.
    of course.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rich2606)
    i see where you are coming from and i personally wouldn't give to an animal charity either for this reason.
    :ditto:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think most people who choose to donate to animal charities are conciously putting more weight on helping animals than helping people in need. It's most likely they are animal lovers, animal owners or have themselves witnessed mishappenings to animals.

    But to conciously decide to place animals above people isn't something I agree with. But I don't think animal (and other non-human) charities should get no money.
    Huh.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    w.e. go cry about how black people are killing off the indigenous white race of Britain or something.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What about all the animals that get abandoned and abused and thrown out on the streets? They need help and that's what these charities are for.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PAPAdawg)
    wow, no **** :rolleyes:

    everything anybody ever does is done for the same reason. from raising your kids, loving your wife, buying a mother's day card etc. doesnt mean they cant be a force for good. it's only because these things offer the donator an emotional ''return'' that they do it....that's not a bad thing...no more than it's a bad thing that people go into business, with the aim of making a self interested profit, and hence provide people with employment and money to spend to help them live, hence helping THEIR slef interest.

    self interest makes the world go round, it's no big secret mate so dont try to make it sound all intelligent by giving your post an aura of mystique :rofl:
    So you're looking down on those who have more of an emotional attachment to animals than people, despite both charities ending in the same result of showing good will?

    People don't gain my sympathy because for the most half they do it to themselves; they can get back up and turn their lives around but they'd rather people do it for them, animals have no say in whether their habitats are raped by industry or not, can't protest against being skinned alive for unnecessary clothing.

    Humans think of themselves as superior life forms because they're more intelligent; following that same trend you'd expect people to say that mentally disabled people are inferior because of their lower intellect, suddenly people cry 'equality for all'.

    TL;DR animals are helpless in our environment, people are independent.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Who cares if animal suffering has been caused by humans, that doesn't automatically make them a more worthy cause. For the most part, we only need human charities to help people whose suffering has been caused by others or nature. I'm glad we have some animal charities (though NOT the RSPCA, which is a huge waste of money), as they're necessary, but think that people who give money to animals becuase they think human life is not worth saving are *******.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sorafdfs)
    w.e. go cry about how black people are killing off the indigenous white race of Britain or something.
    wow, that was relevant :rolleyes:

    what if i told you my girlfrriend was half black? (true)

    Way to stereotype :rolleyes:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    If everyone had that mentality we would be an even more selfish species than we already are.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danadd9)
    So you're looking down on those who have more of an emotional attachment to animals than people, despite both charities ending in the same result of showing good will?

    People don't gain my sympathy because for the most half they do it to themselves; they can get back up and turn their lives around but they'd rather people do it for them, animals have no say in whether their habitats are raped by industry or not, can't protest against being skinned alive for unnecessary clothing.

    Humans think of themselves as superior life forms because they're more intelligent; following that same trend you'd expect people to say that mentally disabled people are inferior because of their lower intellect, suddenly people cry 'equality for all'.

    TL;DR animals are helpless in our environment, people are independent.
    The fact they come from the same source is irrelevant. My point is this; giving to people charities is beneficial to our society whwereas giving to animal ones is detrimental. Therefore, the latter is not in our interests.

    Not really rocket science is it? If you disagree with me then we'll leave it there. But, i have no respect for your opinion that animal charities are of more worth than human ones.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    my mum worked for a cats charity for 20 years before she retired, why do you think that animals should live in crap conditions because people have taken them on and then not bothered caring for them.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by somethingbeautiful)
    If everyone had that mentality we would be an even more selfish species than we already are.
    but every species is selfish. I dont understand why it is a generally acepted notion that humans are a selfish species....as species go we are remarkably unselfish...we keep pets which we look after, we feel sympathy and even sometimes empathy for animals, we understand the consequewnces of what we do on our enviroment and have created laws to restrict these effects.

    If, like any semi intelligent person should, you understand and have faith in darwin's theory then you should mknow that, as species go, humans are, for all our faults, an extremely considerate lot

    in the animal world it's every animal for themselves, you're either killing and eating smaller animals just to survive or you're fodder for a bigger animal. you think animals get it over and done with quickly before killing their prey? do they ****...they dont give a monkeys....we have laws that make sure k,illing is humane
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It is in some people's interests though. It's all about morals and ethics.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Animals can't stand up for themselves.

    Most people obviously disagree with you considering more is given to animal charities than human ones.

    Isn't it arrogant to assume a human's life is worth more than an animal's?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=PAPAdawg] My point is this; giving to people charities is beneficial to our society whwereas giving to animal ones is detrimental. Therefore, the latter is not in our interests.

    well, disabled people are probably detrimental to our society in your eyes, but i bet you have no problem with anyone donating money to a person in a wheel chair? and you shouldnt
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danadd9)
    animals have no say in whether their habitats are raped by industry or not
    Er, a lot of people don't either justsoyaknow.

    (Original post by Tony2DaMax)
    Animals can't stand up for themselves.
    Neither can a lot of people?? Seriously this is not an argument.

    ETA: Not an argument for placing more weight on saving animals than humans. I think I was a bit strong saying that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by explosions hurt)
    Yes. Let the ******* dogs die. Even better, kill the dogs and feed them to homeless people.
    You've just solved one of the world's biggest problems.

    Why are we not killing dogs?!
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
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.