What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Isn't it weird to donate for sick animals when we have sick kids? (1 Viewer)

Otis

Footballguy
Just pondering this as I saw one of those ASPCA commercials or whatever that talk about starving dogs and cats in shelters. Is it a little weird that we donate so much in the way of resources as a society to these animals, particularly when those resources could instead be focused on a more important class -- i.e., people? And while it's sad for older people to get sick and pass on, if I get sick and die in my forties, it will stink, but I would say I've lived a great and full life and it would hardly be tragic. But sick children are the class of need that to me hit the hardest and most powerfully. How the heck are people donating their time and money to fido when there are illnesses that kill children?

Let's debate.* I'll hang up and listen.

*The pit bull nerds don't have to express their view here, given that they promote the spread of a vicious and dangerous breed of animal that regularly attacks, maims, and kills children, so I think we know where they stand on this issue.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think we ( the American people) donate a lot to both- and to hundreds of other charities as well . We 're a very giving society.

 
Every sick child should get a free pet, one that was sick but is now better. This will help make the sick kids get better faster and give the previously sick pet a grateful owner.

 
How much did you spend on your guitars/landscaping/computers/fade diets Otis? Isn't it weird that you spend that much on material things when there are children starving? Think of all the lives you could have saved without spending a million on a house for just 4-5 people.

 
It's not an either-or proposition. Giving to one charity doesn't mean a disservice is being done to other charities. It's not a zero-sum game.

Follow your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion -- it would leave one and only one charity as the "most deserving" of all possible donations.

 
We help sick children and dogs in different ways. For the most part, we go after the low hanging fruit when it comes to pets. Dog is malnourished? $20 bag of dog food, problem solved. Cat has worms? $5 pill. When a kid has, like, leukemia or something, it's a tragedy, but it's going to take a lot more than $25 to help.

 
We help sick children and dogs in different ways. For the most part, we go after the low hanging fruit when it comes to pets. Dog is malnourished? $20 bag of dog food, problem solved. Cat has worms? $5 pill. When a kid has, like, leukemia or something, it's a tragedy, but it's going to take a lot more than $25 to help.
$25 can vaccinate a kid in a third-world country so he doesn't die of a preventable disease.
 
How much did you spend on your guitars/landscaping/computers/fade diets Otis? Isn't it weird that you spend that much on material things when there are children starving? Think of all the lives you could have saved without spending a million on a house for just 4-5 people.
ya know, he's got a point there.

 
Few things are stranger to me than when people complain about other people donating their own time or money to something

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not an either-or proposition. Giving to one charity doesn't mean a disservice is being done to other charities. It's not a zero-sum game.

Follow your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion -- it would leave one and only one charity as the "most deserving" of all possible donations.
Is it such a bad idea to pour all of our resources into children's illnesses first? After we resolve those, then we can harp on stuff that impacts old people, and once people are all set, we can do animals and saving trees and other stuff?
It's sort of like the philosophy of attacking your highest interest credit card debt first.

 
SPCA International alone supposedly collected about $27M. I hear what you're saying, but wouldn't it be nice to divert say, oh, $25M of that to afflictions impacting actual people? I'd put it right to children.

 
How much did you spend on your guitars/landscaping/computers/fade diets Otis? Isn't it weird that you spend that much on material things when there are children starving? Think of all the lives you could have saved without spending a million on a house for just 4-5 people.
ya know, he's got a point there.
I'm not asking anyone here to change their lifestyles. We've all got time and money we've donated to charities. When we look at that whole pie, I have a hard time understanding sending money to help cats when children are dying. This can't really be a difficult concept here, can it?

 
How much did you spend on your guitars/landscaping/computers/fade diets Otis? Isn't it weird that you spend that much on material things when there are children starving? Think of all the lives you could have saved without spending a million on a house for just 4-5 people.
ya know, he's got a point there.
I'm not asking anyone here to change their lifestyles. We've all got time and money we've donated to charities. When we look at that whole pie, I have a hard time understanding sending money to help cats when children are dying. This can't really be a difficult concept here, can it?
Of course not, because he made you look like a clown. :shrug:

There are good debates to be had about best allocation of fiscal resources. Desperately needy conspicuous consumers in constant need of social validation probably shouldn't be chairing that discussion.

 
How much did you spend on your guitars/landscaping/computers/fade diets Otis? Isn't it weird that you spend that much on material things when there are children starving? Think of all the lives you could have saved without spending a million on a house for just 4-5 people.
ya know, he's got a point there.
I'm not asking anyone here to change their lifestyles. We've all got time and money we've donated to charities. When we look at that whole pie, I have a hard time understanding sending money to help cats when children are dying. This can't really be a difficult concept here, can it?
I have a hard time understanding how you could spend money on privacy shrubs when children are dying.

 
We help sick children and dogs in different ways. For the most part, we go after the low hanging fruit when it comes to pets. Dog is malnourished? $20 bag of dog food, problem solved. Cat has worms? $5 pill. When a kid has, like, leukemia or something, it's a tragedy, but it's going to take a lot more than $25 to help.
$25 can vaccinate a kid in a third-world country so he doesn't die of a preventable disease.
Boom.

Enjoy that Chow-Mix, Sandy.

 
ASPCA like many charities started out trying to make a difference and do the right thing. Then like Komen, and MADD it turns into a business that employs many people. Some very well paid who want to keep the $$$$ flowing. These people are paid to prey on your emotions. Listen to the music in the background when it shows the animals, or the flies and bugs landing on the babies eyes. It is a well planned production. I stay away from the big charities for that very reason.

That being said I donate to a couple of local dog rescue groups that I personally know the people. Not money but food and I deliver the food personally.

 
How much did you spend on your guitars/landscaping/computers/fade diets Otis? Isn't it weird that you spend that much on material things when there are children starving? Think of all the lives you could have saved without spending a million on a house for just 4-5 people.
ya know, he's got a point there.
I'm not asking anyone here to change their lifestyles. We've all got time and money we've donated to charities. When we look at that whole pie, I have a hard time understanding sending money to help cats when children are dying. This can't really be a difficult concept here, can it?
Of course not, because he made you look like a clown. :shrug:

There are good debates to be had about best allocation of fiscal resources. Desperately needy conspicuous consumers in constant need of social validation probably shouldn't be chairing that discussion.
:confused:

 
I donate money and gambling winnings to the local dog shelters. Love 'em. Sure kids need help too but I'm a sucker for dogs. Particularly abused ones.

Everybody can give to what they want.

 
How much did you spend on your guitars/landscaping/computers/fade diets Otis? Isn't it weird that you spend that much on material things when there are children starving? Think of all the lives you could have saved without spending a million on a house for just 4-5 people.
ya know, he's got a point there.
I'm not asking anyone here to change their lifestyles. We've all got time and money we've donated to charities. When we look at that whole pie, I have a hard time understanding sending money to help cats when children are dying. This can't really be a difficult concept here, can it?
I have a hard time understanding how you could spend money on privacy shrubs when children are dying.
Seriously. How can he sleep at night.

 
OP - Can we get a list of how much you donate to charity and to which causes. TIA
Sure:

  • I donate a bunch to children's illness causes (e.g., LLS).
  • I don't donate anything to animal causes.
uh.... LLS isn't a children cause

Facts & Figures about Leukemia

Although leukemia often is thought to be a childhood disease, in fact, the disease strikes 10 times as many adults as children. According to the American Cancer Society (ACS), about 44,240 new leukemia cases were diagnosed in the United States in 2007. Acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) is the most frequently-reported form of leukemia in adults, and approximately 13,410 new cases were reported in 2007.

About 41% of all leukemias diagnosed are chronic—an estimated 15,340 chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) cases and 4,570 chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) cases were diagnosed in 2007. Hairy cell leukemia (HCL), a slow-growing lymphocytic cancer, accounts for about 2% of all leukemias.


Like many other types of cancer, chronic leukemias become more common with age. The average age of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is roughly 70 years, and the average age of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) patients is 40 to 50 years old. By contrast, acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) is largely a pediatric (childhood) disease and usually occurs in children younger than 10 years of age.

Worldwide, leukemia generally affects men more often than women. In Western countries, the male:female ratio is highest in CLL patients.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
How much did you spend on your guitars/landscaping/computers/fade diets Otis? Isn't it weird that you spend that much on material things when there are children starving? Think of all the lives you could have saved without spending a million on a house for just 4-5 people.
ya know, he's got a point there.
I'm not asking anyone here to change their lifestyles. We've all got time and money we've donated to charities. When we look at that whole pie, I have a hard time understanding sending money to help cats when children are dying. This can't really be a difficult concept here, can it?
I have a hard time understanding how you could spend money on privacy shrubs when children are dying.
Fair. It's not really relevant to the core issue here, but fair.

That said, I'm not suggesting we all give away everything we have and live like Jesus. I'm saying that we donate X to charities each year. It's weird to me that a significant portion of that goes to cats.

:shrug:

 
OP - Can we get a list of how much you donate to charity and to which causes. TIA
Sure:

  • I donate a bunch to children's illness causes (e.g., LLS).
  • I don't donate anything to animal causes.
uh.... LLS isn't a children disease

Facts & Figures about Leukemia

Although leukemia often is thought to be a childhood disease, in fact, the disease strikes 10 times as many adults as children. According to the American Cancer Society (ACS), about 44,240 new leukemia cases were diagnosed in the United States in 2007. Acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) is the most frequently-reported form of leukemia in adults, and approximately 13,410 new cases were reported in 2007.

About 41% of all leukemias diagnosed are chronic—an estimated 15,340 chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) cases and 4,570 chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) cases were diagnosed in 2007. Hairy cell leukemia (HCL), a slow-growing lymphocytic cancer, accounts for about 2% of all leukemias.


Like many other types of cancer, chronic leukemias become more common with age. The average age of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is roughly 70 years, and the average age of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) patients is 40 to 50 years old. By contrast, acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) is largely a pediatric (childhood) disease and usually occurs in children younger than 10 years of age.

Worldwide, leukemia generally affects men more often than women. In Western countries, the male:female ratio is highest in CLL patients.
Weird, most people I know of who've had these blood cancers have been young people.

:shrug:

Well, at least it's not going to cat cancer.

 
Maybe I'll stop my donations to Disabled American Vets and give to a children's charity. What did the veterans do anyway?

 
Maybe I'll stop my donations to Disabled American Vets and give to a children's charity. What did the veterans do anyway?
Big fan of donations to vets. They've made tremendous sacrifices and should be cared for.

Or we could redirect all their donations to dalmations?

 
Anyway, I like animals. As unwitting members of a society we've created, they have no family support to take care of the financial needs we've thrust upon them. Kids do. I am my puppy's keeper.

You want to give to kids, breast cancer, Westboro Baptist Church, or the Privacy Hedge Proliferation Society, knock yourself out. :shrug:

I'd rather save the wolves or something.

 
How much did you spend on your guitars/landscaping/computers/fade diets Otis? Isn't it weird that you spend that much on material things when there are children starving? Think of all the lives you could have saved without spending a million on a house for just 4-5 people.
ya know, he's got a point there.
I'm not asking anyone here to change their lifestyles. We've all got time and money we've donated to charities. When we look at that whole pie, I have a hard time understanding sending money to help cats when children are dying. This can't really be a difficult concept here, can it?
I have a hard time understanding how you could spend money on privacy shrubs when children are dying.
Seriously. How can he sleep at night.
Probably pretty easy on an expensive, super comfortable king size bed...while so many children sleep on dirt floors around the world.

 
Maybe I'll stop my donations to Disabled American Vets and give to a children's charity. What did the veterans do anyway?
Big fan of donations to vets. They've made tremendous sacrifices and should be cared for.
Well, according to you, the vets can wait. We need to care for the children first.
Ok, let's have reasonable people differ on which class of humans are most in need. My primary point here was children vs. cats.

 
Just pondering this as I saw one of those ASPCA commercials or whatever that talk about starving dogs and cats in shelters. Is it a little weird that we donate so much in the way of resources as a society to these animals, particularly when those resources could instead be focused on a more important class -- i.e., people? And while it's sad for older people to get sick and pass on, if I get sick and die in my forties, it will stink, but I would say I've lived a great and full life and it would hardly be tragic. But sick children are the class of need that to me hit the hardest and most powerfully. How the heck are people donating their time and money to fido when there are illnesses that kill children?

Let's debate.* I'll hang up and listen.

*The pit bull nerds don't have to express their view here, given that they promote the spread of a vicious and dangerous breed of animal that regularly attacks, maims, and kills children, so I think we know where they stand on this issue.
I'm with you, Otis. I love dogs, cats, etc., and about the only living thing I'll kill are plants (food, weeds), rodents and insects. That said, people >>>>>>> pets.

Others are correct in saying it doesn't need to be one or the other! But I personally have never understood how people will place themselves at the brink (financially), just so they can have ___ animals running around their house/property. It's almost like a certain part of people's brains don't fire. People just scraping by, barely paying their monthly bills, yet spending a few grand/year (if they're lucky, and their pets don't need lots of attention from a vet) on cats, dogs, fish, birds, etc. Even worse, keeping animals that can kill people (i.e. poisonous snakes).

I had a neighbor like that. Had two dogs, a cat, some fish, et al. Their garage is falling down. Their house needed paint ten years ago. Their furnace needed replacing. But "they couldn't afford it." Meanwhile, they were spending thousands on pet food, vet visits, etc. One of their dogs bit my wife (in OUR yard, lovely), so they had to shell-out hundreds to cover the doctor's visit, then had to put their dog down to get tested for rabies...since they couldn't afford to give it it's shots. :wall: Then that Winter, one of their children died of carbon monoxide poisoning in their basement. Due to? A faulty furnace. But hey, they've still got their other dogs, cat, fish, etc. Still have a garage that is falling down. Still have a house that desperately needs paint.

Rather than donating to ASPCA, I wish I could donate to a group that would research how to turn certain sections of people's brains on...to prevent needless suffering, injury and death going forward. Maybe then people could also form a foundation to help people like me learn a bit more compassion/empathy. ;) But seriously, some people are just absolute morons when it comes to this stuff. Hearts the size of Texas...which is good/admirable! But it becomes a negative when they're creating needless, avoidable suffering for themselves, their family, their NEIGHBORS, et al. :kicksrock:

 
How much did you spend on your guitars/landscaping/computers/fade diets Otis? Isn't it weird that you spend that much on material things when there are children starving? Think of all the lives you could have saved without spending a million on a house for just 4-5 people.
ya know, he's got a point there.
I'm not asking anyone here to change their lifestyles. We've all got time and money we've donated to charities. When we look at that whole pie, I have a hard time understanding sending money to help cats when children are dying. This can't really be a difficult concept here, can it?
I have a hard time understanding how you could spend money on privacy shrubs when children are dying.
Seriously. How can he sleep at night.
Probably pretty easy on an expensive, super comfortable king size bed...while so many children sleep on dirt floors around the world.
My bed isn't great right now to be honest. I got one of those Sleep Innovations jobs off Amazon. :thumbdown:

 
Maybe I'll stop my donations to Disabled American Vets and give to a children's charity. What did the veterans do anyway?
Big fan of donations to vets. They've made tremendous sacrifices and should be cared for.
Well, according to you, the vets can wait. We need to care for the children first.
Ok, let's have reasonable people differ on which class of humans are most in need. My primary point here was children vs. cats.
Your lifestyle vs children vs cats to be exact.

You don't want to help kids to the point that it impacts your lifestyle. Gotta have a new phone, computer, privacy shrubs, mansion, etc. before you worry about helping the sick kids.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top