jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (27 posts)

Human children or pets?

  1. qwark profile image58
    qwarkposted 6 years ago

    You want to donate money to a good cause.
    You have only 2 to choose from and limited $ to donate.
    Which of the 2 would you support?
    1. impoverished and suffering children worldwide.
    2. the SPCA (society for prevention of cruely to animals.)
    Which one would you choose and why?
    I ask this question because I see, what are to me, disgusting commercials on TV asking people to donate $ to save sick and dying dogs and cats.
    Qwark

    1. Hovalis profile image84
      Hovalisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I would donate for the suffering animals. I already know that the majority of people will donate for the children, and therefore this avenue has already been well-covered. And will continue to be so in this survey. And it'd be the RSPCA here.

      Does this make me less compassionate for not helping my own species first? Absolutely not! As humans we have caused the pain and suffering that these animals have been subjected to. To not try and remedy that situation makes us less human. To suggest, even by giving only one choice as has been given here, that taking care of our own first is the only option, dehumanises us all.

      Actually, the only charity I donate to every month is a local animal shelter and I don't regret it one little bit.

      1. qwark profile image58
        qwarkposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Pandora and Hovalis:
        "Humans are not innately more important than animals."
        That response should make everyone aware of the depth of intellect of the responder....lol
        WE ARE ANIMALS!
        Every 3 minutes a child dies on this planet. They die of starvation, squalor and extreme deprivation.
        Rather than donating a few bucks a month to alleviate their suffering, and improve their lives, you'd rather save a dog or a cat? Got'cha!
        I'll never understand the logic of that, I guess because there is none.
        Yes, to me that attitude is inhumane, and disgusting...but then that's just me responding from my profound feelings of empathy for little children who are I guess, from your point of view, not as worthy of life as is your cat or our dog...sad:
        Qwark

        1. Hovalis profile image84
          Hovalisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Quark you failed to comprehend my post. Read it again, and slowly this time. Or I'll start to think you posted this thread just to troll, and that's not the case at all, is it?

          There is always more than one choice.

          I happen to have a profound empathy for all living things. Companion animals make the lives of so many people, especially the elderly, much better. When we abuse them, we must fix that problem. There is no compromise here for me.

          You asked a leading question. You got my answer, and it won't change.

          1. qwark profile image58
            qwarkposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Mr Hovalis:

            I think it is you who did not read my question with comprehension...or...you consider cats and dogs with greater empathy than you do human children.

            My question gave you 2 choices: 1. cats and dogs, 2. human children.

            You made your choice poignantly.

            It seems that of the 2 choices I offered, you chose cats and dogs.

            So be it.

            Qwark

            1. Hovalis profile image84
              Hovalisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Miss Quark, I did indeed.

              And I don't regret it one iota.

              There is always more than one choice, even when the other person tries to limit you.

              1. qwark profile image58
                qwarkposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Mr. Hovalis: There sure is and you picked 1 of the 2 offered. Nothing more need be said in ref to where your concern lies...lol.
                Qwark  smile:

                1. Hovalis profile image84
                  Hovalisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  The implication behind your question required answering. And that is people who choose to give to animal charities are inhumane. Oh, and look at the avatar. Do I look male?

                  1. qwark profile image58
                    qwarkposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Mz.Hovalis: My apology...lol...
                    As I said, no more need be said.
                    Your choice was obvious.
                    Thanks...smile:
                    Qwark

  2. SomewayOuttaHere profile image59
    SomewayOuttaHereposted 6 years ago

    ...for me, children of course...

    ...how ya doin' Qwark? big_smile

    1. qwark profile image58
      qwarkposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for asking Someway!
      Doin' good!
      The new year is beginning a little chilly but nuthin' we can't handle....and you?
      I'm trying to figure out what kinds of people would choose to give help to dogs and cats when the $ could be spent alleviating the death, pain and suffering of children.
      Happy New Year to ya   smile:
      Qwark

      1. SomewayOuttaHere profile image59
        SomewayOuttaHereposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        happy new year to you 2...and you 2 Rafini!...the new year has started out pretty good for me....it's only the 14th however...big_smile....but i hope it keeps up....

        ...later...

        1. qwark profile image58
          qwarkposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Fingers crossed! smile:

  3. Rafini profile image89
    Rafiniposted 6 years ago

    Children first, always. smile

    I can see and understand the need for the prevention of cruelty to animals, but children are more important for the future.

  4. habee profile image96
    habeeposted 6 years ago

    I donate to both. Disgusting SPCA commercials? Do you think animal abuse is disgusting, or helping abused animals is disgusting?

    1. qwark profile image58
      qwarkposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Habee:
      Pls re-read my comment.
      You didn't understand it.  smile:
      Qwark

      1. habee profile image96
        habeeposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        I read it again and still don't understand how you meant "disgusting."

        IF I could donate to only one, it would be to humans. But I would still take in homeless animals and feed them. It's a lot harder to take kids away from their parents.

        1. qwark profile image58
          qwarkposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Habee and Malin:
          I said if you could only give to one 'cause you were limited in the amount of $ you could donate.
          Of course both are good causes, but it disgusts me to to think that if there were only 2 to choose from that one would choose dogs and cats over children...and many do!
          Evidently you both still didn't read my question with understanding.
          Qwark

  5. b. Malin profile image74
    b. Malinposted 6 years ago

    I would donate to both...neither is more important than the other.

    1. Right On Time profile image63
      Right On Timeposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      here here! cool

  6. Vicki.Pierce profile image70
    Vicki.Pierceposted 6 years ago

    I love living with pets, but human children come first.

  7. habee profile image96
    habeeposted 6 years ago

    Read my post again - I made a choice.

  8. Pandoras Box profile image66
    Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago

    Good answer Hovalis. I agree. Humans are not innately more important than animals.

  9. Pandoras Box profile image66
    Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago

    According to your logic noone should ever help a common dog or cat because there are always going to be suffering children in the world. What makes it okay to give to animals as long as you've given as well in the same way to suffering children? There's no difference. If you give half to one you're still choosing to give half to the other when an endless line of the former await.

    But the way you make it sound, it's okay to give to animal charities, as long as you've appeased your conscience by giving to suffering human children first.

    Makes no sense to me, just self-righteous drivel.

    Is it only animal causes you find wasteful, or are all causes other than feeding starving children a waste of time? As long as there are starving children, we shouldn't think any other cause worthy of attention?

    People who prefer to give charity to animals over humans (despite your pointless point) likely do so because they've personally seen and been moved by a need there. Whom are you to disparage their motivation and humanity?

  10. Pandoras Box profile image66
    Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago

    And I'll add that throwing money at systematic poverty doesn't solve much anyway.

    1. qwark profile image58
      qwarkposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Pandora:
      That has nothing to do with my question does it? Naw! smile:
      Qwark

      1. Hovalis profile image84
        Hovalisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Actually it is right at the core of your question. Will giving to these charities solve the problem or perpetuate it? If the answer is the latter, then isn't that even more cruel to the children?

 
working