Do you give to animal charities?

[IBM]

so, you respect opinions you have just insulted, that makes sense.....


And i think your debate was ill informed, one sided and certainly lacking in anything resembling intelligence. The fact is that you have deliberately picked out supporters of certain charities and lambasted them because you think their money could be better spent elsewhere. Well i do not think you have the right to tell anyone which charity their money should go to, never mind actually insult them for their choice

Oh for goodness sake, grow up. Read the whole properly. I haven't insulted anyone, except for you, and you're begging for it honestly. I have expressed disbelief that they would chose one of the other. And as far as saying my debate was lacking in anything resembling intelligence....well, I'd say that speaks very eloquently about your own.

Lets see, your calling me names because I think that children are more important than animals. My goodness, that's such an unintelligent point of debate.

I repeat. Grow up.

[Dareos]

now you are resorting to name calling because you have failed to convince people of your viewpoint, and you are telling me to grow up, methinks you need to look at yourself in greater detail before even attempting to judge others.

As i stated previously, your debate does not cover enough of the issues to have merit, stop being so damn narrow minded and look at others viewpoints instead of rehashing your own over and over.

[mcmiller]

I didn't say they don't suffer, they don't suffer as much. Human, capable of intelligent and rational thought, suffering being more than just physical pain. the only person whose intelligence is called into question is yours. Try thinking, try imagining, try to put yourself in the position of someone in that situation....all processes above and beyond the ability of your average cat.

so how about other animals like dolphins and monkeys, chimps etc who have either very high levels of brain activity.
I believe they intelligence is worked out by so many pounds acount for lower brain functions, and what is left is used for the higher level brain functions and the dolphin i believe in this respect is the closest. i know your obviously talking about pets..

looking around the net http://www.earthfireinstitute.org/ this website stands out and they talk about using animals to experiment for stress, abandonment and other psychological issues for years just BECAUSE we are so similar, but i suspose they cant use a rock lol

It also points out that brain structure and chemistry is similar

[malfunction]

Hey, 616 views, 120 posts (most of them mine admitedly) in 5 and a half hours....that's got to be one of the most rapidly expanding posts I've ever seen on Hexus....and I passed my 2000th post without even noticing. Wooohooo

Spammer...

For what it's worth I can see both sides to the argument. As I see it:

Yes, logically - not emotively IMO - a starving child is the more worthy cause than a suffering animal however I think that most people weigh up the amount they can afford to donate against the likely good it will do and it is easier to imagine a small donation making a difference at a charity that's closer to home - e.g. RSCPA saving an animal - rather than an end to much bigger situations (poverty, sickness, suffering, etc) that £10 alone is never going to help. I guess what I'm saying here is that it's easier to imagine the RSPCA doing what they need to do rather than solving worldwide problems. For example, to consider starving children in Africa:

£10 = ?

Probably some way towards:

1) Food parcels
2) Help with agriculture, etc to grow food
3) Clean water
4) Medicine

So... #2 and #3 are largely self sustaining measures. #4 isn't really - AFAIK even basic meds are very expensive so like the largely 'unfashionable' food parcels they are reliant on continued aid / donation.

Then what happens as life improves? More people = more strain on resources. Assuming that can be overcome then other issues that are as far as I can see secondary become priorities - education, etc...

My point being that I don't think charities alone can achieve this. So I guess the morally correct thing to do would be to donate what you can in terms of money but to also spend a good portion of time actively lobbying the powers that be to do something about it on a grander scale - perhaps something like EU grants for deprived areas but on a worldwide scale - on top of writing off all debt that can never be repaid - 'IVAs' for 3rd world countries.

There are also other aspects to it - helping those that help themselves - in the sense that any country that is war torn really has to sort that out before the basic problems affecting the entire population can really be solved. Aid / relief being stolen - either money going into peoples pockets or things like food parcels being re-directed to soldiers, etc... It all makes for a "my £10 won't do jack" thought process

[IBM]

Dareos, I've replied, in detail, to just about every point that anyone has raised in this thread. I have criticised people's opinions regarding the value of a persons life vs. the value of an animals life, but once again, that's what a debate is, a differing of opinion, an expression of conflicting ideas and ideals.

The only thing you have contributed is one semi valid post about people's individual motivation mixed with ridiculous conjecture about children being attacked by rabid animals!!?? This was followed by increasingly insulting and immature posts attacking me for having an opinion.

I don't want to convince people of my viewpoint, I want to understand theirs! How many times do I have to say it to you? Do you want me to spell it it out, letter by letter? And why the hell do I have to look at myself? Keep your own insecurities to yourself.

Does not cover enough of the issues to have merit? My god, do you even know what we're debating about? And how the hell am I being narrow minded? Maybe I should broaden my horizons by only focusing on domestic animals in the UK! I'm sure that would make me less narrow minded!

I give up with you, you're obviously just having that hissy fit I mentioned earlier, and can't admit to anything other than the direction your particular rut is going in.

And as for me calling you names....well, you started it.

[kickstart 1]

Yeah a point i would like to pick up on mcmiller ! My dogs understand me and what i say , but i dont understand them .Just because an animal doesnt speak our language doesnt mean it doesnt suffer as much . (unlees you have been an animal in another life and know this for fact ? ) You are just assuming they dont , because they cant put it into words , hell i know lots more animals that are far more intelligent than some people!

oh and whats with always referring to cats ?

[mcmiller]

bit of an old article but
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/sc...ans/index.html

i have seen other programmes where ppl are studyin dolphin "language" and how best to communicate,

[IBM]

Malfunction ... thanks for the input. I guess one of the problems I have with UK based charities is value for money (in a brutal entirely fiscal perspective). You pay £10 to RSPCA, what percentage of that donation actually goes to animals? To run a big organisation like that in the UK takes hundreds of thousands of pounds....just in wages, rent, utilities, legal and advertising fees. The majority of the charities I give to have a general disclaimer which states that the donation going to the children, while all administrative costs are raised through corporate and government lobbying...So to look after one cat in the UK probably costs five times what it would cost to look after a child in the middle east or africa...

Then again, I don't know. I'd love to see the statistics, but I imagine people like the RSPCA like to keep those figures very close to their chests.

[Dareos]

I do not have hissy fits, you obviously however, have a great deal of trouble with seeing the entire ramifications of people ignoring animal charities and focusing entirely on humanitarian ones. I have no problem with charities focusing on human issues as a whole. I have been involved with quite a few myself in the past as i have mentioned, although mine are based closer to home and the heart.

You have however been very condescending as a whole, and as such your debate takes on a holier than thou air which i resent, greatly.

I should have done what Tiggerai did early on, and step out of the debate, I really do not think you wish to hear others opnions, merely voice your own

[IBM]

Yeah a point i would like to pick up on mcmiller ! My dogs understand me and what i say , but i dont understand them .Just because an animal doesnt speak our language doesnt mean it doesnt suffer as much . (unlees you have been an animal in another life and know this for fact ? ) You are just assuming they dont , because they cant put it into words , hell i know lots more animals that are far more intelligent than some people!

oh and whats with always referring to cats ?

It's a nice idea, but animals aren't more intelligent than humans. Some animals might be capable of higher level thought process, and their suffering must be close, but still not comparable to humans. It's the imagination and future perception that makes it incomparable.

Lots of people love cats....they're so cute...it's an easy image for most people to get...

[mcmiller]

yeah i have to agree with you about the rspca, that not really very good at all. My parents have had dealings with them regarding funnily enough cats and they where very awkward to work with

[malfunction]

Malfunction ... thanks for the input. I guess one of the problems I have with UK based charities is value for money (in a brutal entirely fiscal perspective). You pay £10 to RSPCA, what percentage of that donation actually goes to animals? To run a big organisation like that in the UK takes hundreds of thousands of pounds....just in wages, rent, utilities, legal and advertising fees. The majority of the charities I give to have a general disclaimer which states that the donation going to the children, while all administrative costs are raised through corporate and government lobbying...So to look after one cat in the UK probably costs five times what it would cost to look after a child in the middle east or africa...

Then again, I don't know. I'd love to see the statistics, but I imagine people like the RSPCA like to keep those figures very close to their chests.

Whilst I understand the point of wondering where the money goes I don't think it can be boiled down to a simple fiscal equation - the fact that a charity operates in an expensive country doesn't make its actions any less valid - nor should any full time staff members be expected to take a wage that they cannot live on (I appreciate you aren't saying that - your argument is "bang for buck")... For example there's a Sue Ryder hospice near where I live and the nurses there are (AFAIK) paid normal market rates for the job that they do. I imagine that most (if not all) of the people working there need that money to live (I appreciate this is not a particularly straight forward example - I happen to think that Nurses are paid crap money in general - and paid crap for the reason that they will still do the job). The people that work exclusively at the hospice make further sacrifices on top of many normal nurses too - career progression for example is a lot more limited than in other branches. I also believe that a charity operating in an expensive country is more likely to find it easier to raise more money than one in a less expensive country - I would suspect there is some sort of levelling effect because of this.

Anyway - while we are on the subject of pragmatic charitable donations the thing that makes me sick are the "charitable events" that rich folk go to - they work in terms of raising money but the idea of going to a top venue to eat top food and drink top wine, etc to raise cash for starving children and such is a very odd thing indeed.

[IBM]

I do not have hissy fits, you obviously however, have a great deal of trouble with seeing the entire ramifications of people ignoring animal charities and focusing entirely on humanitarian ones. I have no problem with charities focusing on human issues as a whole. I have been involved with quite a few myself in the past as i have mentioned, although mine are based closer to home and the heart.

You have however been very condescending as a whole, and as such your debate takes on a holier than thou air which i resent, greatly.

life's a bitch, isn't it?

I'll put it simply then. Humans > Animals. End of story. But just so I don't upset you any more I grovel before your sensibilities, and humbly submit that it's just my opinion. So sorry for offending your perceptions and prejudices.

I'm going home.

[Raz316]

ibm: I can see where you are coming from but it seems like you are attacking certain charitable actions just because they're are not specifically the first thing you'd help with.

Stating humans > animals; ok fair enough, you've defined your priorities (im not questioning them). But what about if you split the human plight into war and famine, what then? How about splitting these groups into young kids and adults? If you decide to help kids in a war torn area, does that mean you don't think adults in famine deserve help?

[Tarffie]

So I was wondering, if a helicopter was on a roundabout would it take off?

[mcmiller]

So I was wondering, if a helicopter was on a roundabout would it take off?

only if the roundabout was put on a treadmill