Are our first world country pets more important than third world starving children?
Posted by admin on Mar 3, 2008 in Other - Social Science |
Tristan asked:
Just an FYI, I like animals. I think they should be treated fairly, although maybe not to the extent PETA would like. But I do not condone animal cruelty. On that same note, first world countries treat animals like royalty at times. There are plenty of pet owners who treat pets like they are their own children and would spend easily 50+ bucks just so they’re dog could get a pampered bath and groom. Meanwhile, a starving third world child may struggles to get even a few cents worth of food with any nutritional value.
Martial Arts Uniforms - Karate & TKD Uniforms
Just an FYI, I like animals. I think they should be treated fairly, although maybe not to the extent PETA would like. But I do not condone animal cruelty. On that same note, first world countries treat animals like royalty at times. There are plenty of pet owners who treat pets like they are their own children and would spend easily 50+ bucks just so they’re dog could get a pampered bath and groom. Meanwhile, a starving third world child may struggles to get even a few cents worth of food with any nutritional value.
Martial Arts Uniforms - Karate & TKD Uniforms
The only agreement I have is that Americans, particularly Californian’s, spend way too much on pets. I remember having to pay for pet insurance on my car while I lived there. What a load of crap. Don’t let your animal roam free and I won’t hit it.
But realistically your question should say that 3rd world people don’t get treated like idiot American’s pets. Children aren’t treated any different than adults in those places.
I am an animal lover as well. You do make a point, the behavior and expenses of some people towards there pet sis over exajurated…i mean you buy your dog a diamond neckless the same day thousand of people are starving from hunger.
COME ON PEOPLE!!!!!!!
Yes, my dog is more important to me than any kids in the third world, and that is true for deveral very good reasons.
First of all those companies that advertise on TV pay their CEO’s 300K a year. Only about 1/4 of the money you send ever reaches that country. After it gets there it lines the pockets of the rich. Only a few pennies of that $50 will buy anything for the child.
Secondly, when you give money, you only make the situation worse. You take away their reason to work for themselves. I have seen that in the USA many times. My friends that grew up with everything can hardly function as adults. I had barely food to eat when I grew up. I managed to work my way through college on my own.
Thirdly, the government’s of those countries are making a fortune off people, like you, sending money. They have a vested interest in keeping the children poor so that they can keep photographing them and suckering you into sending money. Keep in mind that for some of those countries their biggest export is photographs of starving children. The government officials have palaces and drive expensive cars thanks to people like yourself.