Friday, September 02, 2005

People vs Pets

Not surprisingly, because people have their heads up their rears for the most part, I got heat about my comments about Hurricane-victim pets and none about Dr Doom crying. I really thought people would complain about the sarcastic Doom reference and I actually hesitated to include it. Instead I got hate comments when I maintained people are more important than animals and they should, if donating, do so accordingly.

Well, let's keep it perspective. Look at these 2 images and tell yourself which one your money or other donations should go to if you had to pick one...

A baby


A dog

If you picked Fido, then you really need to go sit in the dark for a while and think about what the hell is wrong with you.



  1. Well, whatever side you come down on when you're sorting through that moral calculus, I hope we could all agree that giving to an organization that trains FEMA-qualified rescue dogs -- many of whom have themselves been selected from pet shelters -- would be a good thing, if you have the resources. Take a look at for more information; these dogs are already on the scene and saving people from the rubble.

  2. Hmm. I checked and you definitely used the word instead rather than as well as. As I read it you were not saying that we should not give money to help animals, but that it should be considered lower priority than helping people.

    Several posters seemed to be under the impression you were saying don't help the doggies and the kitties at all.

    I blame George Bush. He should be out there getting photo ops rescuing cute furry animals.

    My verification words seem to be turning into the names of obscure super villains....

  3. Mine too! Usually from the Martian Manhunter run of House of Mystery...

    Yeah, amazing that people care about kitties before babies.

  4. Hey everyone -- many people in this world are sad and lonely. Their pets are ALL THEY HAVE. No one loves them, or cares if they live or die -- except their loyal pets. Is it such a crime to want to save pets? Why present this totally false choice anyway? Anyone could donate to save BOTH. Please stop with these high and mighty pronouncements, made from the comfort of your home, on what everyone else "should" do.

  5. KK, did you understand what the point was at all? Did you even read both entries or were you just focusing on the puppy? It isn't a false choice.

    I will maintain the more I hear about the horrible cost to the people the more I will freaking shout in the streets that anyone who has to CHOOSE BETWEEN donating to a pet or a human should choose the human.

    Do you even partially understand how many of the 'rescued' animals will have to be put to sleep? Many, many.

    One of the unfortunately necessary functions of animal control is to put down animals. If you think that some of the donated funds will not be used to pay for the euthanasia of thousands of wild and abandoned sick or unplaceable animals you are naive. It is inevitable. No matter how much money is made available many of the animals are a lost cause. There are strict crieteria for keeping or placing found animals and many will not make it through that process.

    People are more important than animals (how many times I need to say it?) and after listening to the sad kitten stories I still don't get why anyone would choose a cat over a person.

    And keep the about the 'comfort of my home' comment out of here. I already said I won't make this blog a 'woe is me' site so I won't talk about what is going on here and about my comfortable home.

    What does me being a few states away from NO have to do with anything? This isn't me yammering about living in Maryland and having an opinion on cost of educating undocumented immigrants in Arizona. If I did THEN your statement would make sense.

    Would you say I can't criticize police corruption because I'm in my home? Can't comment on the Tsunami? Not qualified to say Liberia has a despot for a President? All because I'm in the comfort of my home? My position that people come first because I'm not sleeping in a flooded street somehow becomes invalid?

    Don't murder nuns! It's wrong!

    Is that statement also rendered moot because it is too 'high and mighty' and I type it while seated on a comfy couch from my oh-so-comfortable home?

    How comfortable is your home, your position, that you can advocate an animal surviving over a human?

    My position is clear: If ONE or the OTHER. You keep talking about both.

    Put it this way...I can only donate to ONE organization, if any. Guess where my money goes?

    It's not a crime to save both, but as I stated many times previously (and maybe you should read back because I think you missed it), I think if given a choice you should always pick the person.

    If some sad, lonely guy loses his loyal cat? At least he'll be able to eat and find shelter thanks to donations and then he can live long enough get a new cat.

    Hey, if you can do both go ahead. That isn't selfish, that's nice. But if you can only do one, go with people.


Moderation enabled only because of trolling, racist, homophobic hate-mongers.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.