when there are so many more children in much worse danger with their own tv commercials?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gspElv1yvc&feature=related
sarah mclachlin and the aspca make me sick to have the nerve to try and gain sympathy from people to adopt animals when all that money could be going to prevent innocent children from starving.

does anybody send money to this crap? justify your neglection for human life.

12/3/2009 9:03:20 PM

because there are some tragedies that you can prevent, and some that you can't? i have the right to choose which ones to help fix.

12/3/2009 9:06:28 PM

I understand what you're saying in that all people can't be saved and you may not have the means to save a human but have the means to save an animal but thats moot here because there are easily toons of commericials with humans in the same situations. It costs just as much or more to save an animla than it does to feed/save a child.

[Edited on December 3, 2009 at 9:11 PM. Reason : you're choosing the animal over the child and thats wrong]

12/3/2009 9:10:39 PM

Respectfully, I have the right to choose. You have no moral high ground to tell me that I'm wrong for choosing to support saving animals over saving a human. If that human being's quality of life is going to be terrible if I support saving them, that's hardly doing that person a favor.

12/3/2009 9:13:28 PM

There are a bunch of problems in the world. It's impossible to objectively decide which is the worst problem. Even if we could, I'm not sure that I buy that it's only acceptable to devote resources to that one problem.

12/3/2009 9:15:36 PM

Animals are cuter than kids.

12/3/2009 9:16:14 PM

for the same reason the OP persists in creating poorly thought out threads that are questionably pertinent to this section of TWW . . . because they can.

12/3/2009 9:17:28 PM

so you would advocate putting children to sleep if theyre in an impovershed situation? wow

12/3/2009 9:17:43 PM

i advocate spending my money where i personally feel that it will do the most good. you don't get to decide that for me.

12/3/2009 9:20:12 PM

no, but I do know some people who are prime candidates for 9mm retroactive abortions.

12/3/2009 9:20:30 PM

Cute animals don't have bootstraps from whence to pull themselves up.

12/3/2009 9:25:34 PM

^ hahaha gg

12/3/2009 9:30:25 PM

why did you put adopt in quotes?

12/4/2009 8:16:21 AM

"neglection"

12/4/2009 8:40:21 AM

Quote :

"when there are so many more children in much worse danger with their own tv commercials?"

Because it is not my job to subsidize other people's irresponsible child bearing. Feeding a child today (espicially in a 3rd world country)
is creating 5 more hungry children 20 years from now. This rate of fertility is not sustainable in the long term. A
carrying capacity will be hit; hopefully when i'm not here.

Animals like puppies did not ask to be dumped on the side of the road or to be born.

12/4/2009 8:52:03 AM

Huh? Are you saying the progeny of "other people's irresponsible child bearing" DID ask to be born?

[Edited on December 4, 2009 at 9:02 AM. Reason : ]

12/4/2009 9:01:22 AM

Children don't get murdered if their parents abandon them.

And I don't think most people would appreciate opening a wrapped box on christmas morning to find a nose-picking toddler. Surprise!

[Edited on December 4, 2009 at 9:05 AM. Reason : .]

12/4/2009 9:03:01 AM

It's because the Animals are American of course

12/4/2009 9:58:15 AM

It most definitely does not cost as much to adopt an animal as it does to adopt a kid. Based on what information would you make such an claim?

12/4/2009 2:35:00 PM

Quote :

"for the same reason the OP persists in creating poorly thought out threads that are questionably pertinent to this section of TWW . . . because they can."

/thread

12/4/2009 3:03:37 PM

"adopt" meaning pay 16 dollars a month, get a picture in the mail, and fund vet clinics, pediatric clinics or food relief for children/animlas in high need areas.

12/4/2009 3:04:52 PM

I like people that try to make me feel guilty about getting my dog from a breeder

12/4/2009 3:10:11 PM

Quote :

""adopt" meaning pay 16 dollars a month, get a picture in the mail, and fund vet clinics, pediatric clinics or food relief for children/animlas in high need areas."

"adopting" of this kind is idiotic no matter how you look at it. You're essentially playing monthly dues to feel good about yourself without actually having to do anything.

Quote :

"I like people that try to make me feel guilty about getting my dog from a breeder"

I bought my dog from a breeder as well and don't feel bad about it in the slightest. I was having this conversation with Quinn earlier; it seems as if animal rescues don't really want you to adopt anything as they put such high requirements before pairing you with your new best friend.

12/4/2009 3:19:01 PM

motherfucker, this is one of those fake adoption shits.

[Edited on December 4, 2009 at 3:21 PM. Reason : nvm]

12/4/2009 3:20:29 PM

Quote :

"sarah mclachlin and the aspca make me sick to have the nerve to try and gain sympathy from people to adopt animals when all that money could be going to prevent innocent children from starving. does anybody send money to this crap? justify your neglection for human life."

Adopting an animal is not the same as adopting a child. You can walk into your local shelter and walk out with a new pet and provide it with a good home.

you cannot do this with kids obviously. (well in most countries).

Also there are 10000000 charities and causes out there. You have to pick and chose which ones are most important to you. Sure there are starving kids all over the world, but there are also people dying of AIDS, cancer, heart disease that are just as important and you are more likely going to encounter one of those before you become a starving child in Ethiopia.

Quote :

"I bought my dog from a breeder as well and don't feel bad about it in the slightest. I was having this conversation with Quinn earlier; it seems as if animal rescues don't really want you to adopt anything as they put such high requirements before pairing you with your new best friend."

Same here. I mean breeder dogs still need homes or else they just end up sad and in a shelter needing to be adopted like all the rest. May as well skip that step.

I'll tell you what I would put my money in for a charity. "Help provide Africa and other poverty stricken places with free birth control, condoms, and tube-tying"

[Edited on December 4, 2009 at 3:39 PM. Reason : .]

12/4/2009 3:31:31 PM

Hey mambagrl, how do you describe yourself politically?

I only ask because you're so vocal about how much money people should have and how they should spend it.

12/4/2009 3:36:34 PM

No one said anything about breeders. Play the victim somewhere else.

12/4/2009 3:43:03 PM

^well I certainly didn't pull it out of the air. I would imagine I read about breeders in this thread several times. Hence the quote.

Also, play the victim? lol are you stupid?

[Edited on December 4, 2009 at 3:48 PM. Reason : .]

12/4/2009 3:48:03 PM

I didn't see your edit about having a breeder dog. The fuckers you quoted are complaining about people making them feel bad about breeders when no one said a damn thing.

12/4/2009 3:53:48 PM

Quote :

"I didn't see your edit about having a breeder dog. The fuckers you quoted are complaining about people making them feel bad about breeders when no one said a damn thing."

I do have a breeder dog, I did not make an edit indicating so in this thread.

I don't feel bad about it nor will I ever. I've had my fair share of adopted dogs as well.

12/4/2009 3:56:15 PM

Thats great. No one cares.

12/4/2009 3:59:48 PM

I believe the correct response is "cool story, bra"

12/4/2009 4:01:18 PM

^don't worry, he's just bitter we have breeder dogs

12/4/2009 4:11:20 PM

Quote :

" how do you describe yourself politically?"

humanitarian

Quote :

""adopting" of this kind is idiotic no matter how you look at it. You're essentially playing monthly dues to feel good about yourself without actually having to do anything."

you're helping financially so the people that are physically doing the stuff can do it.

Quote :

"Adopting an animal is not the same as adopting a child. You can walk into your local shelter and walk out with a new pet and provide it with a good home."

I understand that and this threat is about sponsorship that the tv ads call "adoption". Still, the resources you're putting towards a pet (vet, food, time) could be going to humans. Plus, owning a dog has a larger carbon footprint than owning many suv's

Quote :

"Also there are 10000000 charities and causes out there. You have to pick and chose which ones are most important to you. Sure there are starving kids all over the world, but there are also people dying of AIDS, cancer, heart disease that are just as important and you are more likely going to encounter one of those before you become a starving child in Ethiopia. "

thats fine. this thread is human sponsorship vs animal sponsorship

Quote :

"I'll tell you what I would put my money in for a charity. "Help provide Africa and other poverty stricken places with free birth control, condoms, and tube-tying""

so you're implyng people who were already unfortunate enough to be in a poverty-stricken region, are not allowed the happiness reproduction? wow. How would you feel if I said you could never be allowed to have a child?

Quote :

"So what you are saying is we shouldn't own pets but instead give our money to scams charities because some redheaded-slut celebrity on TV told me so? Let me guess, you also believe that we shouldn't pro-create because there are plenty of children that need to be adopted?"

I don't know what gave you those impressions but no. You can have pets if they make you happy but if you're going to go donate money for the benefit of something, make it for humans. Unwanted/troubled pets can be put to sleep much more easily than taken care of. Every human deserves a chance to pro-create if theyre willing and able.

[Edited on December 4, 2009 at 5:38 PM. Reason : humanity is the most sacred thing on the planet]

12/4/2009 5:27:03 PM

Quote :

" I didn't see your edit about having a breeder dog. The fuckers you quoted are complaining about people making them feel bad about breeders when no one said a damn thing. "

Its related to the commercials themselves, some of which actually talk about breeders and puppy mills. I advise you to be knowledgeable about the topic you're commenting on so you can avoid sticking your foot in your mouth again.

Quote :

"you're helping financially so the people that are physically doing the stuff can do it."

How's that solving the core issues of poverty and social injustice though? You're essentially pouring more water into a bucket with a whole and wondering why its never full.

[Edited on December 4, 2009 at 5:32 PM. Reason : >.<]

12/4/2009 5:30:36 PM

Quote :

"I understand that and this threat is about sponsorship that the tv ads call "adoption". Still, the resources you're putting towards a pet (vet, food, time) could be going to humans. Plus, owning a dog has a larger carbon footprint than owning many suv's"

what?

So what you are saying is we shouldn't own pets but instead give our money to scams charities because some redheaded-slut celebrity on TV told me so?

Let me guess, you also believe that we shouldn't pro-create because there are plenty of children that need to be adopted?

Quote :

"so you're implyng people who were already unfortunate enough to be in a poverty-stricken region, are not allowed the happiness reproduction? wow. How would you feel if I said you could never be allowed to have a child?"

oh sure, they can have a child...but just like I'd be expected to support my own child and not whore him out to tv ad's, I'd expect the same of them.

Quote :

"all organisms goal is to reproduce"

well yes, if you want to go that route, great. All organisms also provide for themselves/their young and if they can't they die. So should we adopt the same principal as all organisms?

If you can't feed yourself what makes you think you should bring another mouth to feed into this world?

[Edited on December 4, 2009 at 5:37 PM. Reason : .]

12/4/2009 5:32:22 PM

Quote :

"So what you are saying is we shouldn't own pets but instead give our money to scams charities because some redheaded-slut celebrity on TV told me so? Let me guess, you also believe that we shouldn't pro-create because there are plenty of children that need to be adopted? "

Actually, yes to both counts.

However, mamba seems to be under the impression that if someone is donating money for animals, that they immediately can't help out poor children.

12/4/2009 5:35:55 PM

Quote :

"I don't know what gave you those impressions but no. You can have pets if they make you happy but if you're going to go donate money for the benefit of something, make it for humans. Unwanted/troubled pets can be put to sleep much more easily than taken care of. Every human deserves a chance to pro-create if theyre willing and able. [Edited on December 4, 2009 at 5:38 PM. Reason : humanity is the most sacred thing on the planet"

don't edit a previous post to respond to a post that came after it...its confusing as hell.

that being said...

Humanity isn't the only thing on this planet thats important and it cannot survive alone...so yes, animals are just as important and not in a retarded vegan sort of way.

and no, every human doesn't deserve a chance to pro-create, this is very obvious, just look around you

[Edited on December 4, 2009 at 5:42 PM. Reason : asdf]

12/4/2009 5:41:05 PM

Quote :

"well yes, if you want to go that route, great. All organisms also provide for themselves/their young and if they can't they die. So should we adopt the same principal as all organisms? If you can't feed yourself what makes you think you should bring another mouth to feed into this world?"

Being that we are a communal species, we are all responsible for making sure everyone has the means to provide for themselves. Just because we have deprived people of food doesn't mean we should also deprive them of the right to reproduce also. If there wasn't enough food to go around, you would have a point but we arne't even close to reaching that point and technology will likely always keep us ahead of it as it exponentially increases ahead of the populations exponential increase.

However, as more and more people are bonr into poverty without ever having the means of food, shelter, and healthcare (basic necessities of survival) then you end up with greater amounts of the population living in caveman "survival" mode as opposed to civlization mode where they can focus on education and advance technology. Currently, in a capitalism dominated globe, the %s are shifting more and more to the majority of the population being in survival mode and not advancement mode. Thats dangerous and its all for the sake of a few having the "freedom" to own multiple everythings.

Quote :

"Humanity isn't the only thing on this planet thats important and it cannot survive alone...so yes, animals are just as important and not in a retarded vegan sort of way."

not domesticated pets that don't live in nature or contribute to any ecosystem whatsoever.

[Edited on December 4, 2009 at 5:48 PM. Reason : its people that treat animals above humans that worry me]

12/4/2009 5:46:19 PM

Quote :

"its people that treat animals above humans that worry me"

well yes, same here which is why i mentioned the vegan thing because thats just bat shit crazy. Animals are a resource. At the same time, pets are still worth saving and adopting if one can.

And as sandsanta said earlier, giving money to these groups to feed the hungry is accomplishing nothing. You're feeding them for a day, nothing more. What they need is to know how to feed themselves and that just isn't going to happen by donating money. The problems are with their governments, economies, etc.

12/4/2009 5:54:55 PM

because we, the west, to this day are benefiting off of the depletation of their resources. Also the money doesn't just buy food it buys infrastructure like water systems, sewage, hospitals, schools and "teach me to fish" type things.

12/4/2009 5:59:58 PM

Quote :

" Being that we are a communal species, we are all responsible for making sure everyone has the means to provide for themselves. Just because we have deprived people of food doesn't mean we should also deprive them of the right to reproduce also. If there wasn't enough food to go around, you would have a point but we arne't even close to reaching that point and technology will likely always keep us ahead of it as it exponentially increases ahead of the populations exponential increase. However, as more and more people are bonr into poverty without ever having the means of food, shelter, and healthcare (basic necessities of survival) then you end up with greater amounts of the population living in caveman "survival" mode as opposed to civlization mode where they can focus on education and advance technology. Currently, in a capitalism dominated globe, the %s are shifting more and more to the majority of the population being in survival mode and not advancement mode. Thats dangerous and its all for the sake of a few having the "freedom" to own multiple everythings. "

You're contradicting yourself here because you're making assumptions that don't exist in reality. Third world and developing nations need to make sure their population growth matches their economic and social growth or they are going to run into issues with poverty, starvation, and disease. Welfare from rich nations to poor nations isn't going to change the lives of anyone. Teaching sustainability, making sure local economies are self sufficient and increasing education are going to be effective in fighting poverty.

Its highly irrelevant what the theoretical maximum population the world can support is because that population growth is going to be driven by nations whose economies can't provide for their citizens.

In the context of this thread, yes putting animals above people is stupid but so is raging on the internet against the SPCA and SPCA sponsored commercials because they are an organization that is providing a fairly critical service to society.

12/4/2009 6:00:29 PM

Quote :

"because we, the west, to this day are benefiting off of the depletation of their resources. Also the money doesn't just buy food it buys infrastructure like water systems, sewage, hospitals, schools and "teach me to fish" type things."

These resources aren't being depleted for free. If they have resources in demand, they can profit from it just like everybody else. But instead they live in chaos because its just one corrupt government after another. It sucks, but thats just how it is. Too many bad apples. $16/month isn't going to change that.

[Edited on December 4, 2009 at 6:06 PM. Reason : .]

12/4/2009 6:05:33 PM

Quote :

"Help provide Africa and other poverty stricken places with free birth control, condoms, and tube-tying""

I would support a charity funding dispensement of contraceptives in Africa. Was it not Bush it ended US aid that went to
contraceptives. The one thing imho that helped world hunger than anything else.

Quote :

"understand that and this threat is about sponsorship that the tv ads call "adoption". Still, the resources you're putting towards a pet (vet, food, time) could be going to humans. Plus, owning a dog has a larger carbon footprint than owning many suv's"

Are you fucking serious. Sure to be socially responsible i don't drive a gas guzzling SUV, turn my lights off, and try to be environmentally conscious.
When green liberals start complaining though about dogs and eating meat causing to much of a "carbon footprint" then I completely
tune out. The biggest crock of shit is when buying a plane ticket the website offered the option of paying $5-$15 to offset your
carbon footprint by giving to some charity. If environmentalist spent half the effort to combat and correct known pollution/environmental
issues as they do trying to lobby for CO2 cap and trade then the world would be a better place. I do not disbelieve in human
induced climate change but liberals and environmentalists have totally blown the issue out of proportion.

Quote :

"that's fine. this thread is human sponsorship vs animal sponsorship"

Quote :

"so you're implying people who were already unfortunate enough to be in a poverty-stricken region, are not allowed the happiness reproduction? wow. "

Do you not get it?!?!?!?!?
Simply providing my $16/year for rice bowls does not solve anything. Feeding one hungry person today is creating five hungry
people tomorrow. The only real way to "help" these people is to promote responsible family planning, initiate economic promoting initiatives,
and encouraging responsible governments in the 3rd world to actually care about their population.

Quote :

"How would you feel if I said you could never be allowed to have a child?"

If I could not afford it and was relying on tax payers or charity givers then I have nothing to be upset about.

Quote :

"Every human deserves a chance to pro-create if theyre willing and able. "

Sure they deserve a "chance" but it is not my responsibility to support irresponsible reproduction and subsidize their child
rearing at the cost of my own family. There is something called a "CARRYING CAPACITY" and currently technology has to evolve
in order to allow the feeding of our exponentially growing population. If you look throughout history and wonder why we all
do not sit around singing coo-bah-yah holding hands its due to competitions over scarce resources. WARS are fought over
this and by helping manage population size; hippies/humanitarians indirectly discourage wars and genocide.

Plus captain planet can suck it.

mambagrl don't worry i don't dislike you for your awry way of thinking. One day you will get out of the bubble of NCSU and
realize the way the world truly is.

Quote :

"All organisms also provide for themselves/their young and if they can't they die. So should we adopt the same principal as all organisms?"

You forgot to get eaten by predators too!

Quote :

"Just because we have deprived people of food doesn't mean we should also deprive them of the right to reproduce also."

Does not compute, illogical hippy liberal idea abstraction, cranial malfunction immanent

Quote :

"the west, to this day are benefiting off of the depletion of their resources. "

Please tell me what resources I am living off of from the hungry children of Somalia??? If anything they pirate our resources to live on.

[Edited on December 4, 2009 at 6:31 PM. Reason : a]

12/4/2009 6:30:41 PM

Quote :

"Its related to the commercials themselves, some of which actually talk about breeders and puppy mills. I advise you to be knowledgeable about the topic you're commenting on so you can avoid sticking your foot in your mouth again."

Oh, right; I should have researched all of the other SPCA commercials that weren't linked-to or discussed to make sure someone's random assertion was relevant.

12/4/2009 8:20:38 PM

Quote :

"Oh, right; I should have researched all of the other SPCA commercials that weren't linked-to or discussed to make sure someone's random assertion was relevant."

Don't pout because you made yourself out to be a complete fool. Simply avoid blatantly disregarding a comment someone is making just because you're ignorant of related information. If you notice, you added zero to the discussion regardless of how relevant TKE's comment was or wasn't.

12/5/2009 3:09:06 AM

sarah mclachlin

12/5/2009 8:49:07 AM

Quote :

"Respectfully, I have the right to choose. You have no moral high ground to tell me that I'm wrong for choosing to support saving animals over saving a human."

THIS


This will probably piss you off mambagrl, but after Katrina I only sent money for animal relief/care. The govt sent my money for the other.

12/5/2009 9:49:59 AM

Humans are not a communal species, we are a tribal species.

We form into tribes and compete with other tribes for resources. If the other tribe dies out? Good, more for us.


Hey, it's our nature, why argue with nature?

12/6/2009 9:04:40 PM

haha fox news keeps showing "Adopt a jew"

12/16/2009 6:00:43 PM