Do You Support Animal Right Activist Who Seems To Care More About Animals Than They Do About Humans?

I think this is a "loaded" question. As always, for some reason, there is an apparent effort to separate the concerns of humans/animal and to pit the two against one another. I don't care if someone supports human interests....that is their right and their heart.

I also don't mind if someone places value in animal issues/concerns. Again, that is their right; their heart. Why must we act as though the two are competing?

If someone is moved by the needs of dogs or cats or horses or wildlife or sea life (etc. ) more than those of humans....so what? There is a place for this person and needs which he/she can fill.So, the same for those who concentrate on human issues/concerns. There is the fact that animals cannot speak for themselves and, honestly, they suffer at the hands of humans in so many ways...so, it is reasonable to think that there is a large number of people who are aware of this and want to end the suffering.

It is a harder path to take, that of animal welfare/rights because of questions just like this one. This question is based on the "belief" that humans are superior, and humans should think "humans, first! " I don't necessarily follow this line of thought.

SO, NO, I am not going to judge animal rights activists or human rights activists. BOTH ARE NEEDED.

Personally I think any one that abuses an animal needs a good swift kick in the head. Repeatedly. But I find it obscene, that a Serial rapist can get a two year sentence and a man who beat his dog gets ten years.

Fine them, forbid them from ever touching an animal. But I really believe Jail time should be reserved. For Rapists, murders, child molesters and other heinous crimes.

Right now I have seven dogs, all but a couple were abused and abandonded by people.

Get the animals away from the abuse and into the hands of some one who wants them and loves them.

Half the time when the state steps in the animals are put down anyway.

Lucky cat gave an excellent answer on the subject.

It seems that whenever someone wants to perpetrate evil onto others must give reasons and pit one thing versus another.

Though there are extremists in all types of groups, political, religious etc. There are also those who really look at things in a detached unbiased way.

Using an unwilling being for whatever purpose we consider "useful" or "good" is wrong period. Note, I said unwilling.

If I were to force my love upon you, or another who is unwilling to accept it, though it is Love, it would still be wrong.

This question is aimed mainly towards animal right activists that contest the experimentation on animals (in my opinion) and would lead to the reply "so if your mother were ill etc etc.

The matter of the fact is that if you have to declaw, debark, anaesthetize an animal to do what you will, it is wrong, just like using date rape drugs, or taking advantage of someone who is passed out, or a child that can not defend him or herself.

One thing is to quickly kill an animal for food if that is one's nature another is to make it endure pain and suffering to study it no matter the motivation.

I surely would not think "I hope he suffered and died in pain or he could do nothing about it while someone was "using" them".

There is one beautiful saying, hard to live by and yet most profound.

As long as we find excuses, lie to ourselves, lie to others for whatever reason, to be accepted, not to feel alone, for our own advantage, we shall never rid ourselves of the evil within.

I do support them in their efforts because something must be done. I do believe that it is not so much that they care more about animals than people but there are a lot of organizations out there that support the human needs and animals are incapable of defending themselves.

Not at all. I love animals and have worked with hundreds, if not thousands that have suffered at the hands of humans. I believe that this treatment needs to stop and actively work toward that end, including supporting stiffer penalties for abuse (though I also think there should be stiffer penalties for ALL violent crimes and those perpetrated against the helpless), however there does have to be a limit.As much as I love all the other species we share this world with, our first and foremost obligation must be to our own species.

If people who have done nothing wrong are harmed in the pursuit of animal rights it is not a good thing, and likely will only have detrimental effects on the cause the perpetrators are trying to support in the first place. On the same token, if it is in your power to help starving animals or a starving child, which should be more important? I work hard to help the animals because they are within my sphere of influence and it's something that needs to be done and I have the ability to do, but if needy humans step into that sphere of influence then I see my own moral obligation as helping them first and the animals second.

Totally agree with lucky cats... usually..taking up and fighting for a cause depends on a person's own experience with the related cause...for eg if you love your mother you would want support all the underprivileged mother kind.. if you love your pet you would support the same kind...its just the kind of experience you go through in your that you choose your cause to fight for...main point is serving. And supporting the "_underprivileged.

Not at all. I love animals and have worked with hundreds, if not thousands that have suffered at the hands of humans. I believe that this treatment needs to stop and actively work toward that end, including supporting stiffer penalties for abuse (though I also think there should be stiffer penalties for ALL violent crimes and those perpetrated against the helpless), however there does have to be a limit.

As much as I love all the other species we share this world with, our first and foremost obligation must be to our own species. If people who have done nothing wrong are harmed in the pursuit of animal rights it is not a good thing, and likely will only have detrimental effects on the cause the perpetrators are trying to support in the first place. On the same token, if it is in your power to help starving animals or a starving child, which should be more important?

I work hard to help the animals because they are within my sphere of influence and it's something that needs to be done and I have the ability to do, but if needy humans step into that sphere of influence then I see my own moral obligation as helping them first and the animals second.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.