|
08 Oct 03 - 07:14 PM (#1032029) Subject: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: John Routledge Two current TV advertising campaigns for charities in UK First for NSPCC - National charity for children asking for £2 p.month Second for RSPCA- National charity for animals asking for £3 p.month. Is this sad or is it just me who is sad? |
|
08 Oct 03 - 07:26 PM (#1032035) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: McGrath of Harlow On the other hand, when we pay our taxes, looking after children is an important part of what we are paying for, including, quite rightly, payments to the NSPCC, alongside statutory agencies fiinanced through taxation. But we don't expect any of our tax money to go to look after animals. |
|
08 Oct 03 - 07:35 PM (#1032039) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: Ebbie Good point, McGrath. However, our local Humane Society is currently using a slogan that drives me batty: Pets are People, too! No. They are not. |
|
08 Oct 03 - 08:00 PM (#1032052) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: Joybell No they aren't people and that is stupid too bcause it clouds the issue. I think the real tragedy here is that we need a society called the RSPCA. Isn't that just so terrible that we have to spend money to stop people being cruel. If we didn't need the RSPCA we could use the money elsewhere. |
|
08 Oct 03 - 08:11 PM (#1032058) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: mack/misophist Those of us who don't like children and don't have children often like and have animals. In almost every way, animals are superior to children for the first 5-10 years of life, largely superior for the next 5-10 years, and superior to some children for about 80 years. And they look better. |
|
08 Oct 03 - 08:20 PM (#1032061) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: McGrath of Harlow I think the real tragedy here is that we need a society called the RSPCA. The even more shameful thing is that we need a society called the NSPCC. |
|
08 Oct 03 - 08:33 PM (#1032073) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: Joybell Couldn't agree more. McGrath. |
|
08 Oct 03 - 09:07 PM (#1032092) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: Clinton Hammond I care more about animals than I do children... |
|
08 Oct 03 - 09:15 PM (#1032096) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: Padre And our pets never ask to borrow the car. |
|
08 Oct 03 - 09:38 PM (#1032109) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: Ebbie misophist, given the life span of almost all animals, (unless you have a parrot or a pet elephant?) I have to believe you are speaking about the human (yourself?) rather than the pet:In almost every way, animals are superior to children for the first 5-10 years of life, largely superior for the next 5-10 years, and superior to some children for about 80 years. And they look better. Are you saying "In almost every way animals are superior to children for the first 5-10 years of the child's life, largely superior in the child's next 5-10 years, and superior to some children (Don't you ever grow up??) for about 80 years of the child's life. And the children look better." Please clarify. :) |
|
08 Oct 03 - 09:40 PM (#1032112) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: Sorcha Sorry, but pets are too indeed people. I like children, but yes, my dogs/cats are also 'people'. Very much so. |
|
08 Oct 03 - 10:07 PM (#1032131) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: Little Hawk It's less problematical loving animals, because they love back pretty unconditionally and are essentially a lot easier to deal with than people. People are less afraid of their pets than they are of their kids, and THAT's why it's easier to push their emotional buttons with a charity for animals. You can treat your dog with condescension, manipulation, selfishness, and a general lack of respect and he still worships you, but your kid won't by the time he reaches 14. I guarantee it. People who aren't mature enough to relate well to another human can still do sort of okay with a pet. And that's why, in an alienated modern society, pets have become a really big business! I figure that the more screwed up people get the more pets you will see them owning to make up for the emotional vacuum in their lives. Check out places like Beverly Hills, California for the lunatic fringe of this sort of thing. Now in a simpler society (like Cuba or Trinidad) people may have pets all right, but they are far less involved with them, and the pets themselves live far freer and more natural lives, because they are not being made to fill a gulf of loneliness in their owners that can only truly be filled by other human beings. They're free to be real animals, not surrogate human companions. There are almost no pets at the ashram I visit from time to time. Why would there be? People there are totally engaged with other people daily in a meaningful manner, and are not lacking for human company in the least. No offense to those who love their pets! I have dearly loved various pets too. I also chose not to have children for various reasons. I just mean there's a terrible loneliness out there in modern society, and it's not a healthy situation. The worse it gets, the more you will see people huddling alone in their apartments with their pets, their TV, and their computer (speaking of which, I think I'll shut this little monster down!). Gahhh! - LH |
|
09 Oct 03 - 12:28 AM (#1032203) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: LadyJean I thought it was generally known that Brits loved their dogs more than their children. |
|
09 Oct 03 - 01:43 AM (#1032234) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: mack/misophist Apologies to Ebbie. The years referred to children, not animals. I should add that I think the animal is happier and it's companion human more satisfied when the pet is treated like an animal, not a 'fur person'. Cats are marvelous animals. They'd make shitty people. |
|
09 Oct 03 - 02:53 AM (#1032243) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: Sandra in Sydney a bit of history - A British/English society to protect animals came into existance much earlier in the 19th century than the one wanting to protect children. And all us civilized 1st world countries spend more on pet stuff than some countries can spend on their people. Every now & then we hear in Oz that some poor pensioner who gets Meals on Wheels (very cheap nutritious meals delivered daily by charities) giving some/most of it to their pet. We also have several wonderful groups who provide Therapy pets to disabled folks & to assist people stuck in nursing homes & hospitals. People who are physically, mentally or emotionally withdrawn have a better quality of life when these animals are part of their lives. sandra |
|
09 Oct 03 - 06:08 AM (#1032288) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: McGrath of Harlow My stepmother often used to give her Meals on Wheels to her pets, but that was because she didn't fancy eating them herself. The pets were less choosy. |
|
09 Oct 03 - 07:47 AM (#1032326) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: GUEST And LadyJean takes another oppurtunity to stick it to the (mean and small minded) Brits/English, probably not that much of a lady after all. |
|
09 Oct 03 - 01:20 PM (#1032532) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: John MacKenzie Must admit guest that LadyJean does seem to have some sort of anti-British agenda. What's the problem Jean?? Giok |
|
09 Oct 03 - 01:27 PM (#1032541) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: Uncle_DaveO Dealing with the original thread question, I would point out that the two figures really can't be compared. The figures are set by different parties, based on the expected needs of the respective organizations, and each without relation to the amount asked by the other organization. Also, influenced by each of the organizations' estimate of how many people may respond with a pledge at the requested level. No way to compare the two figures. Dave Oesterreich |
|
09 Oct 03 - 02:29 PM (#1032578) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: Ebbie Sorry, but pets are too indeed people. I like children, but yes, my dogs/cats are also 'people'. Very much so. Sorcha, aren't you really just saying that they are precious? |
|
09 Oct 03 - 03:45 PM (#1032625) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: Arnie The fact that we need an organisation like the NSPCC has always struck me as a bit odd. Surely we have Social Services to deal with child neglect/abuse and the like? That's what I'd like to believe but Social Services have proved time and time again that they just aren't capable of protecting every little kiddie who needs their protection despite being a huge Gov't funded department. That being the case, the Gov't should subsidise the NSPCC then they wouldn't need to rely on charity to carry out their excellent work. In fact if the National Lottery can find £800 million for the bloody Great Millenium Dome Disaster then why can't they finance the NSPCC I wonder? - this might even tempt me into spending some dosh on the lottery again despite the impossible odds. On the subject of animals, my dog Sam died 5 years ago at the young age of 8 and I still miss him like hell even though he used to bite most of my mates! Anyway, I donate to the RSPCA whenever an envelope arrives through the door but just to redress the balance I also give to the NSPCC 'cos I know the Gov't and Lottery have much more important priorities....... |
|
09 Oct 03 - 04:22 PM (#1032646) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: McGrath of Harlow The NSPCC gets a good few millions from the Government, but it values the independence ot has through the fact it raises most of its money direct from the public. Sad to say, just like Social Services, the NSPCC gets it wrong every now and again, for the same kinds of reasons - human fallability and lack of the right people in the right placeat the righttime. And tragedies happen as a result. |
|
09 Oct 03 - 08:02 PM (#1032743) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: GUEST,Ely, the veterinary technician I'm of the "apples and oranges" opinion (and of course I think that we shouldn't need either organization), but I'm going to go on a rant, anyway. Pets living "freer and more natural lives" often live considerably shorter, less healthy lives, too. I love my dog and consider her to be, if not completely human, human in many respects. I feed her premium dog food because junk food isn't good for ANYONE. I get her heartworm pills because heartworms are a horrible way to die. She gets pills for epilepsy because even mild seizures cause brain damage. I walk her at least three miles a day because everyone needs exercise (she's a small dog). I get her toys because she likes toys. If worse comes to worst and she ends up needing prescription food or some other medications as she gets older, I'll get those, too, as long as she is not in pain. Not everyone is childless because they don't like kids. I'd like kids but I'm single, underpaid, and work long hours; I cannot, in any respect, afford a human child. On the flip side, a lot of devoted pet owners have children, too (I grew up with a younger brother and a series of pampered dogs and cats). People who are so selfish that they mostly sit in their rooms feeling sorry for themselves don't make good pet owners any more than they make good parents. |
|
09 Oct 03 - 08:24 PM (#1032760) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: Raptor On this side of the pond people have to apply to get a dog or cat from the SPCA but anyone can go get knocked up and have a kid regardless of how stupid or incompetant they are! There are too many feral cats around and far too many delinquants as well I say Spay or Neuter your pet and most of the people too! You should have testing for potential parents with a vasectomy for the LOSERS! Raptor |
|
09 Oct 03 - 08:44 PM (#1032769) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: Joybell I've always found that the people who turn up at ralies or speak up at forums or in letters to the newspapers on issues relating to injustice and cruelty are the exact same people whether the victims of the injustice are pets, wild animals or humans. They are also the same people who speak up about related issues like destruction of natural ecosystems. The focus differs slightly but we are all saying the same thing really aren't we? As I speak there is a baby orphaned magpie on my head. She'll go away soon, with her wild friends, just like the kids did. I don't quite know how that fits in the discussion but somehow it seems to. |
|
09 Oct 03 - 09:15 PM (#1032782) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: Metchosin speaking of orphaned Corvidae, an representive of the SPCA advised me to throw the baby crow we had rescued as hard as I could against a brick wall, if I valued songbirds. We didn't and a fine fellow he turned out to be too. Cro-Magnon even got his picture in the paper. |
|
09 Oct 03 - 09:43 PM (#1032794) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: Joybell What a great name for a crow. Magpie doesn't inspire such possibilities. Our current one is Mrs. Peepers because she loves our glasses. We are baby sitting "Harry" for the day too. We have had "The Ayatollah", "Underfoot", "Sternly", "Yodellady", and many others. Yes we have a lot of problems with our resident ravens (not crows, although they are called that here,) They do make it hard for little birds especially when so much of the natural habitat has been taken over by sheep. It's hard to try to bring back the balance. I've put out a call for road-kills just for their breeding season because I found that it's then that they cause the most damage. The neighbours already think I'm a bit mad so it's ok. The magpies usually are content with grubs and road-kills. Wonderful birds the Corvids. So smart and so friendly. |
|
09 Oct 03 - 11:02 PM (#1032834) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: GUEST No difference in the US...most mudcatters with animal-names are valued more than GUESTS or MCers who are not critter-like. |
|
10 Oct 03 - 07:49 AM (#1033021) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: McGrath of Harlow Even if everyone was kind to animals and all that there'd still need to be somewhere you could ring to get help when something had happened to put some animal at risk. The same applies to human children. And voluntary organisations can often have the edge okver statutory ones in responding to undual situations. Perhaps the word "cruelty" in the titles is too narrowm because a lot of the time what is involved isn't actually cruelty. There's "The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds" - maybe that's a more appropriate use of language. |
|
10 Oct 03 - 12:23 PM (#1033204) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: Little Hawk Whether 'tis better to live a shorter, freer life or a longer, more restricted life is a philosophical subject that one could debate for a long, long time... - LH |
|
10 Oct 03 - 12:26 PM (#1033208) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: McGrath of Harlow Consider the case of Ming the New York Tiger |
|
11 Oct 03 - 05:59 AM (#1033595) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: smallpiper There was once an experiment conducted on tv (here in the uk) where they chained a couple of cute looking kids to a fence in a very public place and filmed them for a few hours. The kids where completely ignored by passers by except for one bloke (after about 3 hours) who stopped talked to them then called the police. They then chained a dog to the smae fence and people where stopping and being very concerned after 5 mins, what does that tell you? |
|
11 Oct 03 - 12:54 PM (#1033742) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: Liz the Squeak I just know that I've wanted to kill my child on a practically daily basis since she started to talk - I've never wanted to kill my cats (except once when the little darling put me in hospital for 3 days). Perhaps that's the difference, as was said above. The animals/birds give 'affection'/attention unconditionally (except in the case of cats when it's whoever has the tin opener), children need to be entertained, nurtured, understood, tolerated, clothed, disciplined, educated, supported, bribed and loved on their terms. I have my doubts about the RSPCA - I've been involved in 2 incidents with them where they refused to come and help a sick animal because it was Saturday, and where they forcibly removed an elderly dog from its owner because the interfering neighbours said the dog was being ill treated. The dog had an allergic skin condition which was being treated regularly but made it look quite bald and scabby. The owners were investigated and the dog put into RSPCA kennels for 6 months. It came back with kennel cough, a nervous disorder and died 6 weeks later. The RSPCA made no apology for the false accusations, no recompense for the dogs' illnesses contracted in kennels, and sent them a four figure bill for the 6 months care. So now I pick my charities carefully. LTS |
|
11 Oct 03 - 01:55 PM (#1033780) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: GUEST You can eat your pet duck, chicken, pig, even your cat or dog if you are careful about not letting others know, unfortunately, children are universally taboo. |
|
11 Oct 03 - 07:35 PM (#1033890) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: Joybell The RSPCA here in Australia is actually making a difference in the lives of many animals. Our eggs are now labled "cage eggs" or "RSPCA approved" - which means that they are not kept under the the cruel conditions of their cage cousins. The pig farmers are now compelled to keep their animals in more humane conditions - because of the RSPCA. The live animal trade is under fire but so far it remains our great shame. |
|
12 Oct 03 - 12:06 AM (#1033975) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: GUEST,.gargoyle Are the children still testey and the animals still tastey? |
|
12 Oct 03 - 06:58 AM (#1034039) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: Joybell Back to the chained children experiment. - Could it be that people seeing kids chained up just naturally assumed that it was part of a film shoot, or an experiment looking into human behaviour - which it was. A chained-up dog on the other hand would be seen as less unusual but more worrying because it would be unable to ask for help or explain why it was there. |
|
12 Oct 03 - 05:01 PM (#1034229) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: The Barden of England I'm a Brit and I always have, and always will love my children Lady Jean. So tell me now, do you love the children that think it's fun to go to school and blow their fellow humans away because they don't like mondays? Don't see that here in the UK now do we?? Think again before you make sweeping generalisations and I will then take back what I just said!! |
|
13 Oct 03 - 06:38 AM (#1034475) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: smallpiper Who knows Joybell but the point is that no one stopped to even find out. |
|
13 Oct 03 - 02:26 PM (#1034775) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: Lady Nancy It all makes very interesting reading. Not to put TOO fine a point on things, NOTE: it is the NATIONAL society for the protection of children, but it has Royal Assent as the ROYAL society for the protection of animals..... Says a lot, I think...? |
|
13 Oct 03 - 06:12 PM (#1034905) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: smallpiper Yep it says that the tits are for beasts but the rest of us should be for our kids. |
|
13 Oct 03 - 06:29 PM (#1034910) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: Joybell Yes Yes I know what the point of the "Chain the children to the fence" stunt was supposed to prove. Problem is -- It's not a REAL problem. It's a red herring and a vicious one at that. There are so many REAL problems with children who are neglected, starved, abused, unloved, homeless. Worldwide there are children who are kidnapped to serve as boy soldiers or prostitutes, factory workers, kids without the basics like clean water. We must not waste our outrage, or our tears on a silly and very obviously contrived stunt. On top of that it seems to have been designed to set people up. So that anyone from a country other than the one in which it was conducted can say, in shocked outrage, -- "Oh how terrible. I always knew the ....... (fill in Brits/Americans/Australians) thought more of their pets than their children!!" Eric Berne called this unhelpful game "Ain't it Awful" If you play it well enough you can forget all about the REAL issues. I hate red herrings I just hate them with a vengeance. I dread the day we have a Be kind to Red Herrings Week because I'll be sure to run amok. |
|
14 Oct 03 - 02:35 AM (#1035139) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: Liz the Squeak AS the RSPCA came first, I suspect that calling it the NSPCC was a deliberate attempt to avoid confusion. RSPCA/RSPCC - too similar to not be confused. LTS |
|
14 Oct 03 - 03:02 AM (#1035151) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: The Barden of England Well done Joybell, I agree with you entirely. I shouldn't have a knee-jerk reaction to this obviously anti-brit theme and yes, we should all look at the wider picture and see the suffering and humiliation metered out to the young worldwide. |
|
14 Oct 03 - 05:20 AM (#1035201) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: smallpiper Yes Joybell but playing the game sometimes draws attention to the wider issues. Isn't that what Berne was doing in his Games people play? How about instead of inserting a nationality try using the word People. |
|
14 Oct 03 - 05:56 AM (#1035221) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: McGrath of Harlow Two kids keeping each other company and apparently reasonably happy and kept safe from traffic or predatory strangers - what's to worry about? I'd suspect that, if it had been one child rather than two, it might have worked out differently. Which I imagine was why they did it that way. |
|
14 Oct 03 - 07:13 AM (#1035254) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: InOBU When I was at law school I noticed a rather odd demographic. The issues of human rights were generally addressed by student organizations made up of memebrs of an ethnic minority, often closely realted to the human rights need, or working class students, where the animal rights group where often members of the domenant majority population. Just one of those things which makes one say, "hmmmmmm". Cheers Larry |
|
14 Oct 03 - 09:44 AM (#1035331) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: GUEST at my non law school, just the opposite was the case. I also find little Hawks reasoning a bit condesending. But perhaps I am reading it wrong. |
|
14 Oct 03 - 11:21 AM (#1035384) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: Wilfried Schaum Animals can't sing and play the piano. My lovely daughters can, and I enjoy it. Any questions? Wilfried |
|
14 Oct 03 - 01:01 PM (#1035443) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: smallpiper Yes - What is themeaning of life (and don't say 42) |
|
14 Oct 03 - 01:48 PM (#1035479) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: GUEST For two years I worked in a vets, for three I worked in a toy shop. I'll yake animals any day. People have more control over their animals. Many parents seem to think that everyone is amused by the bad behaviour of their kids, not so. Also, I think this is an argument based on a false permise. The original poster seems to equate fund raising with what we value. If that were the case we would never fund raise for anything but human causes. |
|
14 Oct 03 - 01:53 PM (#1035485) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: JenEllen It is unbalanced for many reasons, John. The monetary imbalance is only part of it. There's also the assumption that you can place a dollar value on simple care and compassion. Two limitless things that everyone has, yet refuse to share. They are basically asking you what it's worth to you to not have to care. I think that in itself is criminal. Little Hawk, a wonder as usual, but I think your ashram should have MORE contact with animals. Not as pets, but as fellow travelers. I don't think you can learn simple and honest communication from humans, everything runs through a million filters before it is spoken -- whereas with animals, it is often a straight line from A to B, ya know? There is a lot to learn. |
|
14 Oct 03 - 05:42 PM (#1035652) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: Joybell Stunts are a great way to draw attention to a problem. Michael Moore being the King at this I reckon. BUT the stunt has to have a clear message. I've participated in many stunts and engineered a few but I like to think that witnesses got the message. And no smallpiper, Eric Berne was meerly the observer of "The Games People Play" he does offer some suggestions about countering "bad games" but his focus is on observation (and on selling his book). He does not mention stunts like the one we are discussing, as such. John I think your response was entirely appropriate and it highlights exactly the point I am making. |
|
14 Oct 03 - 06:08 PM (#1035670) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: Liz the Squeak That's the answer to life - the universe and everything - = 42. The meaning of life was something completely different. Just remember that we're standing on a planet that's evolving, and revolving at 900 miles a second, so it's reckoned.... So remember when you're feeling rather small and insecure, how amazingly unlikely is your birth. And pray that there's intelligent life, somewhere out in space, Cos there's bugger all down here on earth! LTS |
|
14 Oct 03 - 07:01 PM (#1035707) Subject: RE: BS: UK Animals valued more than Children From: smallpiper Joybell; Berne was selling his book i.e. playing a game and remember observing something changes that which is being observed. |