Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I completely agree and, to be honest, for that reason I have never given to an animal charity - or and arts and culture charity.

    But people can and will choose to spend their money how they like. You could spend that tenner in your pocket on alcohol, a new t-shirt, going to the cinema, helping an animal, helping to cure cancer or helping the homeless. At the end of the day I can't get on a moral pedestal, because I'd probably spend a spare tenner on booze or clothes.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tony2DaMax)
    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?


    go **** yourself
    that's my issue with it. that people care more about animals.

    and therfore, whilst you think it's arrogant to value humans over animals (depsite the fact EVERY other known life form does exactly that :rolleyes: ) i think it's a lot more worrying to value animals over humans, which they obviously do as you said, than vice versa.
    Offline

    1
    Just because people are in need of aid, it's still acceptable to care for animals and prevent cruelty.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kai4321)
    You've just solved one of the world's biggest problems.

    Why are we not killing dogs?!
    Ethics.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Also similar logic could say you shouldn't give to human charities because environmental charities are more important - after all, cancer won't wipe out the human race, but global warming might. Cancer doesn't kill as many people as desertification, flooding, deforestation and overcultivation do, as these reduce the amount of land which can be farmed and people starve.

    So OP, tell your uncle to take a long hard look in the mirror. He should have said '**** that Pakistani girl, I need to save the trees.'

    EDIT:

    Also a lot of animal charities help humans. For example stopping overfishing is important to ensure that people don't fish themselves out of food and livelihood. Stopping the oceans being emptied of sharks is important in maintaining an ecosytsem which is a huge part of the removal of greenhouse gases. That donkey charity teaches people in poor countries how to not work their donkey to death, a donkey which they need for their livelihoods.

    Anyway besides all that, all the charities have a valid cause. If you tell people who to donate to based on 'worthiness', eventually you will only be left with one charity.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think we are all God's creatures.

    I think that animals do a lot for humans, therefore, by supporting animals you are supporting humans.

    Horses make manure for our soil to help us grow food, they provide transport. Cows, pigs etc give us meat.

    It's been scientifically proven that having a pet is good for your wellbeing. Having a cat purring on your lap significantly lowers your blood pressure.

    I personally give to animal charities, but I give a lot more to human charities.

    I do agree that animal charities are a disgrace, because the government should be doing its bit to look after animals. I think it's also a disgrace that we have charities such as Age Concern. The government should be doing enough to look after the people who defended our country, built our bridges, hospitals and made the country a better place.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddyman4)
    Also similar logic could say you shouldn't give to human charities because environmental charities are more important - after all, cancer won't wipe out the human race, but global warming might. Cancer doesn't kill as many people as desertification, flooding, deforestation and overcultivation do, as these reduce the amount of land which can be farmed and people starve.

    So OP, tell your uncle to take a long hard look in the mirror. He should have said '**** that Pakistani girl, I need to save the trees.'
    i never ever raised the issue of enviromental charities though!

    And you know why? :rolleyes:

    Because they can help people :facepalm:

    Soooo....you were putting words in my mouth perhaps?

    Id. i. ot.

    my op is not about creating a hierarchy of charities....i was just pointing out that animal charities are not meriting of what they recieive. i never said anything about cancer/child charities being tha highest form of charity. if you want to debate enviromental vs human charity then start a thread
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PAPAdawg)
    i never ever raised the issue of enviromental charities though!

    And you know why? :rolleyes:

    Because they can help people :facepalm:

    Soooo....you were putting words in my mouth perhaps?

    Id. i. ot.
    It's called an analogy?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CTVicky)
    I think we are all God's creatures.

    I think that animals do a lot for humans, therefore, by supporting animals you are supporting humans.

    Horses make manure for our soil to help us grow food, they provide transport. Cows, pigs etc give us meat.

    It's been scientifically proven that having a pet is good for your wellbeing. Having a cat purring on your lap significantly lowers your blood pressure.

    I personally give to animal charities, but I give a lot more to human charities.

    I do agree that animal charities are a disgrace, because the government should be doing its bit to look after animals. I think it's also a disgrace that we have charities such as Age Concern. The government should be doing enough to look after the people who defended our country, built our bridges, hospitals and made the country a better place.
    Oh no! Here come the whackos.....:facepalm:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Charities are all a big con anyway. They exist to make people feel better about wasting the rest of their money on objects they don't need when there's people starving to death in the rest of the world.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PAPAdawg)
    Oh no! Here come the whackos.....:facepalm:

    That statement shows you are ignorant, bigoted, narrow-minded and not someone whose comments people should take seriously.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    to be honest im ok with it. i got my dog from the NCDL and as a pup she'd been left on the roadside in a binliner tied shut and nearly kicked to death and since they don't get any government funding i would give them some money from time to time just with the idea of trying to save dogs like her but I do think all of the charities for people are infinitely more important
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PAPAdawg)
    You can sponsor an orphan in africa...the money that you spend on a pint would feed this child for about a month.
    I don't know where you get your pints from but I've yet to spend some 20 quid on a beer.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PAPAdawg)
    i never ever raised the issue of enviromental charities though!

    And you know why? :rolleyes:

    Because they can help people :facepalm:

    Soooo....you were putting words in my mouth perhaps?

    Id. i. ot.
    Oh dear. I'll try again:

    1. You say that people should donate to specific people charities such as 'sponser a child' and cancer charities, instead of animal charities, because people are more important.

    2. Environmental charities are more important in helping people than specific people charities . I assume from your reply that you agree.

    3. Thus your own logic (see point 1 - people are the most important thing) would dictate that you should donate to environmental charities instead of specific people charities.

    4. This contradicts your congratulation of your uncle for donating to a specific people charity, and suggests that people shouldn't donate to cancer charities, etc., which also contradicts your previous posts.

    (Original post by PAPAdawg)
    my op is not about creating a hierarchy of charities....i was just pointing out that animal charities are not meriting of what they recieive. i never said anything about cancer/child charities being tha highest form of charity. if you want to debate enviromental vs human charity then start a thread
    Yes that is exactly what your OP is about. You have divided charities into different categories and told people which are more deserving of support based on importance. You decided that all people charities are 'more important' than all animal charities. This is a hierarchy.

    I won't start a thread about that, because it has probably already been debated, just as your topic has been debated 5 times already (see my post on page 1).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PAPAdawg)
    i know i am imposing my views, i am aware. But i just can not comprehend how messed up you must be to make such a decision. I actually think that's a pretty disgusting thing for you to do. most people who chose animal over people charities seem to do so because the animal charities are better marketed and so easier to give to....but to actually understand what you are neglecting and takr the conscious decision to donate to a ******* puppy charity...i just think you're sick and have loads of issues
    firstly i agree with Linweth so wooo im sick too apparently... and second the link to that puppy site is for GUIDE DOGS WHICH HELP HUMANS! the puppy will grow up being able to help a blind person (yes a human being) to have a normal life... way to go OP now you just sound a bit silly.

    and at the end of the day animals mean so much to some people. what about an old woman who has a cat for company, so what if she gives money to them? an animal charity would surely mean more to her than say for example the NSPCC?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Stupid thread.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I'd donate to both. I don't see why they are a 'disgrace', at the end of the day its a choice for anyone to give to whoever they want and they do a lot of good. Its just personal opinion.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hannah_dru)
    Ethics.
    What's ethically wrong about killing dogs for food? It's no more ethically wrong than killing a pig for food.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    You can't say that if there were no animal charities then the people who donate money to the likes of the RSPCA would automatically donate money to charities that help people. They are just as likely to donate no money at all. Therefore its not animal charities that you have a problem with, but people that don't donate money to help people.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CityOfMyHeart)
    Someone needs to look after them, considering most of the time it's humans that have hurt these animals in some way or another in the first place.
    This.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.