Animals vs. Children -- Commentary on our society?

[Kanary]

I've noticed for many years that people are more ready to care about animals than they are to care about people, even children. Apparently many others have noticed this same phenomenon. Even the ASPCA was formed long before there was any similar organization for children. This has NEVER made any sense to me, as we keep saying how much we value children.

This article reports on this at a local level, comparing recent events. Seems to me this is an issue that the Dems badly need to address! Do we value our children, or don't we?

http://www.9news.com/storyfull.aspx?storyid=24577

Kanary

[onebigbadwulf]

1. Michael Moore talks about this in one of his books

In his movie "Rodger & Me" he shows a black man being shot to death (Murdered) in the middle of the street. A few minutes later he shows footage of a rabbit being clubbed to death and skinned for food.


Everyone complained about the rabbit, but no one complained about the black man.

[DrWeird]

2. Just look at the movies.

A bunch of people get blown up. No problem. A dog gets killed, holy shit!

I think it's mostly an issue of desensitization.

[enkidu2]

5. hold on a friggin minute

these are anecdotal examples which prove nothing except for you all had the conclusion in mind and then sought out the examples. Michael Moore is a hunter, I dont listen to him to hear a sensitive explication on our duties to other species. I dont think it is an either or thing. Animals feel pain as acutely as humans do, that means if we are noble we should not hurt them unless we have no other choice. We also should not harm children or adults for that matter. WHY MUST IT BE EITHER OR?

[Kanary]

7. Why indeed?

That is my question.

As for your assertion that I "had the conclusion in mind, then sought out the examples", you are doing the same with that statement. I came to this conclusion years ago, as I said in my initial post (did you read that?), because of noticing this over and over through the years.

Before getting your dander up and making these assumptions in a rather strident tone, you might want to check out with the person first if that is, indeed, what is happening.

Kanary

[DrWeird]

8. Well I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition.

Do you deny what we're discussing?

It's not like I meant my post to be scientific proof or anything. Jesus Fucking Christ.

[midnight armadillo]

43. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!

Sorry, couldn't resist...

[camero]

3. Sadly yes

Most people (in this country anyway) have never seen a person die. Our relatives are put in Nursing homes or die in hospitals away from most people except the people in that business who become desensitized to it.

Most have seen at least one animal die. Hence the reaction.

I've seen both and neither one is a very good sight. Probably explains my philosophy.

[camero]

15. Ok I read the article

It asks about animals vs people. So my comment is to the point. Was I the only one that got this from the article?

[SoCalDem]

4. We do value them, BUT

we also (as a society) presume that children are the "responsibility" of their parents, and there are many laws on the books to preserve that relationship.

Most of what "happens" to children , happens within that parental sphere, so unless a child actually comes forward and complains about mistreatment, or the act is seen by a bystander, there is no way to "know" what happens to them.

As a group, children are "cared for", but the damage to them is done individually, and unless we plan to install monitors in every household, we will never know whether they all get treated well..

Animals are different.. They cannot advocate for themselves, no matter how old they get.. They will never be able to walk up to a cop and say "Hey, my person hasn't fed me for a week, and he beats me with a broomstick"..

Animals are always "toddleresque" in their need for protection. Their instincts are always with them, but our modern society has overwhelmed their ability to actually use those instincts much.

[Kanary]

9. I'm definitely puzzled... did you read the article?

How would you expect a 2-year-old to fend for himself, and stand up to abuse?

No, children are NOT more empowered than animals. I guess this is part of where this is coming from.

Kanary, very dismayed

[SoCalDem]

10. My point is that , sadly, there is no way to know

what is happening, because we assume that parents DO take care of their kids..

The ones that we find out about are the tip of the iceberg. Most go unnoticed until something horrible happens..

Lots of people should not have kids, but they do.

When something happens to a child, people probably feel terrible, but assume that there are agencies to help.

I think a lot of people probably do not even read stories like the one in the article, because it's too upsetting to them..

I don't know what the solution is, but I think a lot of it is due to the isolation that so many people feel.. There used to be Grandmas & Aunts & cousins who knew what was going on with the kids in the family, but that's not happening much anymore..

Desperate people do terrible things..and they usually happen to the kids :(

Add to the fact that lots of kids are hurt/killed by "boyfriends & steps", and that may account for some of the lack of sympathy (if that's even the proper word here).. Lonely, cash-strapped women who cannot support their families gravitate to a "guy" who will love them, help them and make their "family" whole.. Not every man can accept another man's child as his own..

Animals are brutal about this.. a new male lion will first kill all the cubs..he does not want any of the offspring to be anything but HIS cubs..

I am NOT saying that all boyfriends/steps want harm to come to their girlfriend's kids, but if she is naive and desperate, she often puts her kids at risk because she puts the guy first...

Our society often judges people and the mere mention of "boyfriend or stepfather" can conjure up an image of what kind of mother she was.. Whether or not it's true, it CAN affect how the child's death is percieved.

[Kanary]

23. I tried, but I'm not getting your point

Pets are "owned" by people, the same as kids. I don't see how that changes things.

Animal abuse usually isn't known until something "bad" happens.

The difference is... the response. Just like the article said.

We've simply tuned out on people. It's easier to care about the 4-leggeds.

I'm pointing out something that is Very Wrong in our society.

It does, indeed, take a village.

It's time to start creating village mentality here.

Kanary

[hlthe2b]

13. Nations, as well as individuals, will be judged by the way they treat

the weakest among them.....

I agree it should not be an either/or situation. We must be concerned about all animals, including our fellow homo sapiens. But as SoCalDem has pointed out, most children have an advocate in their parents. When that advocacy breaks down, society must step in and it falls to all of us to ensure that it does.

Animals on the otherhand, (especially companion animals) have no one to automatically intercede on their behalf. They are totally our dependents, given the changes modern society has forced upon them. Speaking of dogs for the moment, thousands of years of domestication living side by side with people has diminished their natural survival instincts and replaced it with a trust and codependency on people. I take that responsiblity quite seriously and am heartened that most others do as well.

When (as I discussed in another thread) a sicko sets fire to a helpless puppy, that level of cruelty must invoke a very serious response from all of us-- not only because of the unbelievable cruelty to the helpless animal, but because that individual's disregard for life and penchance for violence can easily translate to similar actions towards "other animals" including our children.

[Kanary]

24. Most pets have advocates in their "owners" too

I"m really missing this point.... I guess what I'm witnessing here is this automatic response that somehow animals are much more important than even kids.

"They are totally our dependents, given the changes modern society has forced upon them. Speaking of dogs for
the moment, thousands of years of domestication living side by side with people has diminished their natural
survival instincts and replaced it with a trust and codependency on people."

I fail to see how that negates the fact that human children are dependent for a much longer time than most animals. I just don't understand this idea that somehow children are supposed to be able to take care of themselves in the face of whatever abuse befalls them. I will have to leave the conversation, as I find this attitude very enraging.

I would point out to you that other societies don't view their children this way. It's peculiarly USian.

Kanary

[hlthe2b]

36. I fear that you are reading into people's responses... things that are NOT

there. No one is saying that children are less important than animals for God's sake! I've been reading your posts and it seems that you continually seem to be concluding that, no matter what is said. The point is that one can be concerned for children while simultaneously being concerned for animal welfare. Animals (companian animals) are still considered to be legal property, so that some who own them feel free to abuse them. In addition, we have an explosion of unwanted pets that end up in shelters, or on the side of the road. Are you saying it is wrong to be concerned about them?

I would point out to you that European societies and many others DO consider BOTH their children and their animals to be important and both deserving of protection and societal care. This is the point here. It is not one over the other. We need to protect both. I certainly don't want to live in a society that respects ONLY human life. Surely you don't either?

I don't think you read my post further down, but I think that the article is based on absolute fallacy. I live in Denver and have watched these stories on tv news and in the newspapers. Whenever there is a tragedy affecting humans for which the ongoing financial and emotional consequences are made clear, the stories result in tremendous outpouring of help. In this case, it was not made clear in the stories I saw that the family was in need of financial help. I did not see that a fund had been set up. Perhaps that is really the difference. If the press does not report these ongoing needs, then the public may assume they have been addressed.

Regardless, I will not apologize for my ongoing concern for animals. That there exists this kind of ongoing criticism directed at those who do reach out to protect and care for animals, saddens me. I certainly won't ignore a child in need when I have help to offer. Nor will I cease advocating for improved child protections. But, those who would argue against pursuing efforts to protect and care for animals until we solve all issues of childhood abuse or neglect absolutely confound (and depress) me.....

[G_j]

41. yes and for anyone who has payed attention

it's a common RW argument, framed in a way that is meant to "discredit" animal rights advocates. It totally ignores the amount of cruelty we conveniently overlook and even condone in our culture.
It's fine to point out hypocrisy, but our hypocrisy goes far far beyond this simplistic premise.

[zanana]

45. This is an old animal-hater's mantra.

Because you don't like animals, or you don't think we should have the responsibility for them, you'll just turn the argument on the animal-lovers. Example; ANIMAL LOVER; "You shouldn't let your kids hit that dog." ANIMAL HATER: "You love animals more than people"! I've heard this line SO many times. You don't have to love animals to face up to the fact that they are our responsibility, they do have physical as well as emotional feelings, and some people are capable of loving people AND animals. If you aren't don't blame it on animal lovers.

[G_j]

47. I think there is an actual term

for for framing an argument in this manner. I want to say "triangulation"?

We were in front of an Office Depot store a few years ago distributing literature about their policies of using old growth wood in their products. A woman huffed as she walked by "babies are being killed by abortion and you're worrying about trees?"

[blondeatlast]

6. Blood diamonds are a shining example.

Ivory is illegal (and rightly so) but diamonds are just fine by us.

Sick.

[savistocate]

12. Listen to enkidu & SoCalDem

who have stated excellently, so won't expand. For poster of thread & like thinking..read & think it reallllly couldn't be more simply true.

[Lorien]

38. That one has always bothered me

I've seen women actually shrug when I tell them about blood diamonds and why it's better to stay away from them all together. Apparently, they would rather wear a sparkly bauble than spare a child the loss of a limb! :grr:

[K-W]

11. Caring for children would require a complete restructuring of our society.

It would mean aknowledging that it is our responsibility to care for the people around us. It would mean dropping the idea that the unfortunate are that way because it is thier fault, or because it is God's will.

Caring for animals is safer, it requires no paradigm shift.

This has always been my complaint about PETA, I sympathize with thier cause, but until we can keep innocent people and children from being killed around the world, maybe we shouldnt be spending money trying to save cows.

[SoCalDem]

16. There will be no paradigm shift

The very people who abuse their kids..(and lots who don't) would fight to the death to avoid "interference" in their child-rearing..

[camero]

20. From what I understand

Some nations in Europe have made it illegal to spank your kid.

[Kanary]

25. So do abusive animal owners

[DemBones DemBones]

14. Wow, $5,500 donated for a reward to catch the sick-o who set

three dogs on fire, but not a cent donated to the family trying to bury the 2 year-old boy who apparently died of internal bleeding after being punched in the stomach by his mother's boyfriend.

I'm all for catching and punishing animal abusers, but the little boy should have a decent burial, too.

Animals are important but it's a sick society that doesn't value its kids. :cry:

[SoCalDem]

17. I agree, but. the difference is this

the people who donated, probably want that nutcase off the streets.. If they have pets they probably fear for them and their little kids. People who abuse animals go on to abuse people..(or do both at the same time).. So there is a sense here that they are acting in a proactive way to get this guy off the streets..

With the funeral expenses.. they know who did it.. It's terrible, but people are not worried that this guy will come to their house and hurt their kid.

And lots of people are probably thinking that the woman must have family and they should step forward to help her..

my .02

[hlthe2b]

19. That's a little deceptive. The original story on the child's death

did not include a discussion of the family's needs. While we are all guilty of being desensitized-- even to children's deaths (we've had several young children die at the hands of their abusive parents/parent's boyfriends in Denver this year), I don't think it is fair to say we don't care about them. But, unless the news piece covers the impact on the family in total (including financial hardships and any fund set up for them), the natural assumption is that friends, family, church, employers have stepped forward.

The dog case on the other hand triggers our understanding that they have obvious need for help. These were pups that were stolen from a humane shelter, so already we know they were in need of financial assistance for vet bills. It is also apparent that the animals remaining behind are vulnerable to future attempts, and thus to the viewer, the need for help is obvious.

Sometimes it realy does boil down to the need to ask for the help that is required....

[Kanary]

40. There've also been lots of high profile media stories of animals

Remember the cat mutilations? That raised more ire than any story about a child.

And the dog near Boulder, and all the $$$ that was raised to pay for it's medical needs.

The piece from Channel 9 was just giving a recent example. There are lots and lots.

THere have been *many* appeals for help with kids.... so many kids without reliable foster care, etc. They just don't get the response that animal appeals get.

Nope, this isn't just a fluke. Remember the psychologists consulted about this? They agreed it is an ongoing feature.

Kanary

[Kanary]

26. Exactly, DemBones

And I'm glad the reporters chose to do this story.

I hope it provokes a lot of deep thought, as well as help for that one grieving family.

From the responses here, it's obviously something most USians don't want to consider.

I've always said if I was a tree or had 4 legs, I'd have a lot more support.

Sad, sad.....

Kanary

[nankerphelge]

18. Please!

I was just shooting this nonsense down with a coworker earlier today. The "look-what-we-do-for-animals-that-we-don't-do-for-children" argument is so simplistic, it's really started to make me sick when I hear it. In fact, this argument has NEVER made sense to me. It is based on some problem that people have with caring about animals. Would it be alright for me not to care about children as long as I don't care about animals? What would you have us do? Torture animals until every last child in the world is cared for? Isn't it possible that progress can be made on more than one front at the same time? Most importantly, couldn't it be that humane treatment of animals and caring about people are interrelated? Consider this oft quoted phrase: "The Greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." - Gandhi. If you care about children, and even remotely about animals, please don't use this argument thinking that it makes a valid point.

[G_j]

39. people care more about...

Janet Jackson, their favorite sports team, their cars, the latest reality show, etc. etc.

With the amount of cruelty in our world why pit one cruelty against another?
Both children and animals are helpless to protect themselves.


Why not ask why Americans don't seem to care much about the eight plus thousand Iraqi civilians killed by their tax sponsored bombs? Why do we spend enough money to make a major dent in world hunger on the military? Has anyone ever been to a modern slaughter house? Are people paying attention to the horrific wars in Africa?

I have to admit this animal/children debate always makes me :puke:

[Piperay]

42. I agree

this pitting children against animals irritates me, neither can do for themselves and there are plenty of other things that are really wrong that take funds away from BOTH children and animals. :argh:

[Lindacooks]

21. It's all the same thing

We're all part of the web of life, to be kind of smarmy about it. Those who care about animals, especially wild creatures, and want to preserve them and their environment know that people are at the very top of the food chain, and whatever affects those beings lower on the chain will affect people too.

Environmentalists and animal lovers are actually very 'pro child'. They can see the big picture.

And our society should be judged by how it treats ALL vulnerable creatures, be they two legged, young, old, four legged or winged.

[Kanary]

27. I agree we're all connected... two-leggeds and 4-leggeds both

But the story points out something very clear..... there is more public sympathy for animals than for children.

Something is quite wrong.

Kanary

[nankerphelge]

30. You're buying the false syllogism...

of that article. In other words, all you have to say to prove your point is say "here is a case where people cared about animals" and "here is a case where people didn't care about children," so therefore people care more about animals than children. I could just as easily reach the opposite conclusion using this faulty logic. For example, a few months ago a number of dogs were stolen from backyards in our town; it was discovered that they were being used to train pit bulls to fight and they were being ripped apart while still alive. It was a relatively small story in the paper. However, a child was also recently kidnapped in our state. It made statewide news and generated quite a bit of public sympathy. Therefore, (based on the same false syllogisms used in that article) it is very clear that there is more public sympathy for one child than multiple animals.

[SOS]

35. There isn't more sympathy for animals

This line of reasoning excludes 99% of animal abuse.
Think of industrial hog farms where hogs suffer every day of their lives. Millions of cattle stand shoulder to shoulder up to their knees in waste. Fois gras ducks being force fed til their stomachs explode. Dog-fighting rings. Cosmetics companies torture animals by the thousands. The animals suffer in silence with few advocates. Children do not experience this level of abuse in the US, except in very rare circumstances involving a sadistic criminal.

Is it not possible to care for both animals and children? Inflicting suffering on any sentient being is the definition of evil. Why must one exclude the other?

And yes, sometimes the story of an injured or abused dog does arouse alot of sympathy. That's because a lot people love dogs. They hate to see a friend suffer. What's wrong with that?

Children suffer mostly due to their caregivers. Sympathy is sometimes muted or confused due to the anger at the abuser.
Generally Americans are deeply concerned for the welfare of children (although the government isn't and some parents are truly awful). There's plenty of room in this world to give love to both children and animals.

[Chovexani]

28. You said it.

Whenever I hear arguments like this I always wonder why it has a to be an either/or proposition.

You completely hit the nail on the head. I might have to quote you in my sig. :)

[Lorien]

37. Agreed

It is well known that those who abuse animals often end up abusing-even killing-children. It's all connected, and it's not "either/or". Perhaps there's less sympathy for "other peoples' children these days because so many parents are raising their children to be somewhat beastly themselves (which excuses nothing). It's not the kids fault; the parents are often so consumed with making ends meet that it turns into "lord of the flies" in some households. Sadly, I know lots of people out there with a generally negative opinion of children because of the kids they're directly acquainted with (this DOES NOT mean that ANY child EVER deserves abuse! In fact, these same people care about little that doesn't directly effect them). The abused end up abusers all too often; it's a horrible cycle that will take more than sympathy and better law enforcment; it requires a change in our culture and society.Until we can become a less materialistic, better educated society that can offer a living wage to working families, I suspect our troubles will only get worse, as will the lack of compassion for all living things.

[Valerie5555]

22. As far as Sept 11 or 9 /11 heroes went

I ranked "in my books" the day care workers (if there were in fact any child care centres, in and around the vicinity of the WTC) and elementary, junior high and even high school educators and the humane society workers alike WAY ahead of Bushie for the day care workers and educators at all levels as far as K-12 schooling was concerned managed to get their charges / students out of harm's way in such a way as to make the whole experience seem like a grand adventure, and the humane society/ animal control workers gambled everything to go with people to see how their pets or "nonhuman companions" survived that certain "terrorist emergency."

[AG78]

29. I don't know...

if you can ask the question like that. This is one sample for one family. Maybe it's a nationwide thing, maybe not. Maybe in the next town, people have sent in money to help yet another family that has had to go through something similar.

It's rather simplistic; do we value children or not?

I'm not saying either situation is any worse than the other. Any adult that would hit a child that way(or any way really) isn't worth their life. Any person who would burn an animal isn't either.

But in looking at the two situations, the child was, I assume, in his home. The dogs were stolen from a shelter. That is a different situation. One was more private, the other more public. Maybe that makes a difference.

And we used to have, and the world over continues to have, child labor for example. So it's not an American thing. There are many more examples of not caring about animals or children as well.

But the obvious answer is that we all need to do more protection of both children and animals. That's the obvious answer, the best answer, and really the only answer that can answer the question.

[ms_splash]

31. This article and your reactions has nothing to do

with whether or not people value children.

There is a suggestion that people exhibit more outrage at the killing of a puppy vs. the killing of a child. What is this based on? Money? Calls to the station expressing outrage?

It's simple to me. When a child dies, we have law enforcement agencies and prosecutors who put forth (hopefully) a great deal of energy to find the culprit and dispense justice. We (or at least I) feel that little, if anything, will be done by the authorities to bring an animal abuser to justice. The reason I express such outrage about the abuse/killing of an animal is because I don't think enough people find it disturbing. I experience outrage about the abuse/killing of a child, but I expect that others share my outrage, so I don't need to actually express it as strongly.

[Kanary]

33. Maybe that's it.... people make that assumption

Maybe you'd be surprised to learn there are much fewer protections for children than you think there are.

"The reason I express such outrage about the abuse/killing of an animal is because I don't think enough people find it disturbing."

That's certainly not my experience over a long period of time, and, from the article, it's the experience of others that animals get much more attention.

We badly need to look at how our children continually fall through the cracks.

Kanary

[ms_splash]

34. Well, I'm a criminologist

I study and teach, among other things, childhood victimization, so I'm well aware of the problems our in the system. Maybe I'm just a bit jaded. There certainly isn't enough outrage about the horrors perpetrated against children and the failure of the system.

That doesn't wipe out the concern I have for animals.

[gate of the sun]

32. I've noticed this too

and have for many years......people treat their animals with more compassion and patience then many do for small children.

[xchrom]

44. there is no real proof offered

in terms of numbers that people care more about animals than people.
i.e. what government spends on people and children, what churches spend on people and children, what the aspca spends on animals, or what peta spends{that oughta get a flame going}, or greenpeace.
i'm guessing that people and children get the lion's share of our resources.
i know that my church spends considerable dollars on children in uganda, and ramallah -- but none for animals.
unless of course you meant for this article to critisize people more personally -- but you wouldn't do that would you?

[LeahMira]

46. It's not either/or.

We can do both.

But no individual can do everything. Sometimes one person will work for children and another will work for animals. Neither one should be criticised.

I do think it is the primary responsibility of parents and extended family to care for children. I also think that if they need some help, they need to ask and that the community needs to give without comment.

Many times, for instance, single mothers are isolated and attacked. We tell them that they shouldn't have had children in the first place if they weren't prepared to care for them. People don't ask for help because they don't want to hear those messages or because they've already heard them too many times before. Sometimes we are too ready to help the children but at the same time to toss their mothers aside.

Really, though, there's no reason to set one group of people, the animal advocates, against the other, the advocates for children. I think each group does the best they can. Sometimes they will miss dealing with some particular need as apparently happened with the family you mentioned, but that's not a reason to take from the animals. We have the resources to care for all of life. We don't need to choose one over the other, and I'm kind of surprised that anyone would want us to do that.

[sweetheart]

48. love has no boundarys

If someone has only the resouces to care for a pet they love, it keeps them civilized, that.

My dogs are my children. They are intelligent sweet kids who are a delight to be around. I don't have the resources for a kid... emotionally of course, but rather time and money.

I agree that it is odd to put other animals ahead of people, and i don't believe this appropriate, but the mechanisms for caring for kids are too rigid, and i would NEVER get involved with someone else's children for the legal nightmare. There is no upside for loving children, just a lotta unpaid time.

I think the follow on question from yours is: "If we are to value
children, why are the tax codes and economics of our society encouraging the opposite?" There is no benefit in having children
at all... and given a purely economic world without hormones, the population would die off without progeny. Effectively, raising children is a path to poverty. WHo would chose this except by accident.