Where does this belief come from? Why the hell does being an animal lover mean I can't care for humans, too?

On another board I saw people being criticised for giving to animal shelter helping homeless pets in the Katrina effort. They should only give to human charities, apparently. In Reader's Digest I saw a letter criticising a donkey shelter, because they should not exist while humans are homeless. People who give to donkey shelters "have their priorities in the wrong place", apparently. And here on VB I have seen complaints that PETA people "hate humans" because of the way they run their campaigns.

Again, where do these beliefs come from? Why can, or can't, someone care for both human, and non-human, animals? If I am vegan, or support animal rights, why or why not, does that automatically mean I hate humans?

This belief bugs the crap out of me.

In Reader's Digest I saw a letter criticising a donkey shelter, because they should not exist while humans are homeless. People who give to donkey shelters "have their priorities in the wrong place", apparently.


Anyone who lives in a house with more than one room, has more than one change of clothing, and more than one knife and one pot for cooking "has their priorities in the wrong place" because they should be sharing their stuff with other people! :p

I get this "you must hate people" all the time because I'm always suggesting we should change our culture to one that's less damaging to our planet, and so, people leap to the conclusion that I want everyone to "live in a cave."

People for some reason just love to leap to the most negative conclusion; I don't understand why.

I would freely admit that there is some unfortunate misanthropy in the AR movement. This has probably to do with e.g. the fact that cruelty against non-humans is so widespread.

It drives me crazy too, Kiz. :sick:

What strikes me is that in day to day life, I constantly see people treating each other badly. They're rude to each other, steal from each other, and generally don't give two ****s about each other. Most people I've seen don't even show other humans they encounter each day a basic level of respect. So I have to raise my eyebrow at this "humans first" and if you care about animals or whatever you have your "priorities in the wrong place" attitude becasue I'm sure many of the people who say these things treat the people they encounter each day pretty shabbily or at the very least, with complete disregard.

I know what you're talking about. I do, however, have to admit that I have the whole "Humans can fend for themselves" mentality. Animals, for the most part, can't.
Humans are usually in their situations due to humans, either themselves or others. Animals are usually in their situations due to..well, humans. I feel like I owe them.

I know what you're talking about. I do, however, have to admit that I have the whole "Humans can fend for themselves" mentality. Animals, for the most part, can't.
Humans are usually in their situations due to humans, either themselves or others. Animals are usually in their situations due to..well, humans. I feel like I owe them.

I feel the same way... but I know for me, it doesn't mean that I don't care about humans or helping humans. I think what Kiz is getting at is that people think caring about animals and humans are mutually exclusive, and you can't love animals without hating humans, and I don't think that's the case with the vast majority of people.

One possible theory I have is that people who criticize others for showing compassion towards animals have some deep-seated guilt. Perhaps these critics don't do enough themselves for either humans or animals. It's similar to the idea that omnis who criticize veg*ans for not eating meat may feel guilty themselves for eating meat, or for knowingly eating a poor diet while they watch veg*ans eat what is obviously a much healthier meal.

Just my 2 cents.

Actually I really do hate most people so in my case it would be yes.

At our shelter we joke about a love/hate relationship with people. It's easy to hate people when you see them abusing and neglecting animals. But without people to adopt, rescue, foster and care for the animals we couldn't help anyone.

I suppose part of the idea that AR = Anti-Human comes from groups such as VHEMT (http://www.vhemt.org/) that encourage humans to kill themselves to make the world a better place for the animals.

There will always be some unfortunate ppl in need in this world. So logically, nobody should ever waste time and resources on anything except helping these humans, because that is the most important thing ever. Yeah, I can see where this logic takes us. (Hint: down south.)

My impression is that some of the people in the AR movement might have had bad experiences with other people, and in general go along better with animals than their own species.

There are many more reasons to be a misanthrope than the way animals are treated by some people.

The way I look at it, everything is connected. The well-being of the world rests on the shoulders of a variety of things- human safety and happiness included. Nontheless, I think in the vision of a perfect world animals and the natural environment are taken care of and provided with reverence, too. People have a tendancy to view things too black-and-white sometimes.
I will say, however, that sometimes the AR movement can be overly zealous and seem speciest in the favor of animals. Which is fine, I could care less if that is how people feel, but I think that it does add to the idea that AR activists care more about animal suffering than they do about human suffering.

Actually I really do hate most people so in my case it would be yes. Now tell us how you really feel.

"AR or animal lover = Human hater?"
---------------

Since humans are animals, wouldn't it be wrong to hate humans

Although I must admit various humans have been incredibly annoying over time and two have gotten me really annoyed today whilst 0 other species have annoyed me today .

Self-styled realists argue that people who worry about the welfare of guinea pigs should spend their time worrying about something more important. They are wrong. Show me a man who ill treats his dog and I will show you a man who is generally insensitive to suffering. Compassion is indivisible.

Taken from an article I happened to read today:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1558420,00.html#article_continue

That being said, I agree with those who say that there is a certain (and unfortunate) amount of misantrophy in the AR movement.

I think there are some in the AR movement that believes that animals are "better" than humans.

Others in the AR movement disagree.

With any group of people, opinions will differ. Misanthropy is not uncommon in the AR movement, but its not uncommon outside of the AR movement either.

Personally, I think humans are spiffy. :)

I like humans as much as I like other animal species, I don't feel a tremendous preference for humans over other animals, though I do prefer specific individual humans over just any other human or other animal.

I'm dismayed by the belief that "humans are rotten" that so many people hold. It's painting with a broad brush indeed. Some people are rotten, that's for sure! And there are some aspects of our culture that are rotten (most of our food production).

I prefer that my money and my time go to those that can not speak for themselves, animals and children. I also believe that many speak up for the children, not enough but many, but few (comparatively) speak up for the animals. Further I don't see where some idiot writing into Reader's Digest has any right to judge where I send money or spend my time. I'm also bothered by the human conceit that when faced with hard times that one is owed something. Granted this is not held by the majority but those who have this idea are generally more vocal than those who don't.

That's a great quote Azalea.

I prefer that my money and my time go to those that can not speak for themselves, animals and children. I also believe that many speak up for the children, not enough but many, but few (comparatively) speak up for the animals. Further I don't see where some idiot writing into Reader's Digest has any right to judge where I send money or spend my time. I'm also bothered by the human conceit that when faced with hard times that one is owed something. Granted this is not held by the majority but those who have this idea are generally more vocal than those who don't.

That's a great quote Azalea.

I don't think its so clear cut that all adult humans can "speak for themselves" while animals and children cannot. To some extent, adult humans have the ability to make noise in their vocal cords, and so yes, they are able to speak. But all adult humans do not have a voice- the impoverished, homeless, imprisoned- these groups of people are not heard or honored nearly as much as middle or upper class Americans.
I agree with you, someone writing into Reader's Digest has zero right to judge what causes move another person to action. As Azalea implied in her post, compassion is compassion all across the board, and if you treat everything in sight- humans, animals, the environment- with educated compassion, you can't go wrong.

By speak I did not mean the ability to vocalize but instead the ability to impact the situation in which they find themselves. Which of course does not include every adult human on the face of the planet but children and animals absolutly lack the ability to "speak" for themselves. Using Katrina for an example do the adults impacted need and deserve help? Without a doubt. But do the animals and the children and even adults who can't fend for themselves need help as well? My answer for this question is the same. It is the responisbilty of we in the middle and upper classes who can take action and can be heard to be the voice of those who lack that ability for whatever reason. Is that a bit clearer?

It's easy to love animals. Hey, they don't talk. They don't get up and slap you. They don't call you names. They don't hurt your feelings. They don't throw you away when you wrong them.

It's so easy to love animals. But the real test is you loving a people. I'm not talking about your family or friends (because you obviously love them). I'm talking about folks that have wronged you and hurt you. Strangers. You should be able to help them even if you don't know them.

It's so hard to love humans beings. Humans can be mean and low downed, and we do wrong to each other. It's so much much more easier to love an animal because animals dont wrong you :).

I'm gonna admit. I love people more than animals. I love animals too but, not more than I love people. I would help animals too, but I think I would focus more on people. I'm trying to win souls and get them to heaven. I'm a Christian. Please don't say i'm not a compassionate person for thinking like this (people have said i'm not compassionate). It's just not true. It's just that I have an obigation more towards humans than animals. Yours may be animals, but mine is people. God bless.


Monika

I would just like to say that even though I love humans more than animals I would never ever hurt them. I love them. They are Gods creation too. I wouldn't look very Christian-like if I beat animals :D.

Monika

Animals and children have no voice or choice in what happends to them, so my heart is more for those who can't help themselves and are confused and have no means of understanding whats going on. What a scary feeling that must be.
Alene

By speak I did not mean the ability to vocalize but instead the ability to impact the situation in which they find themselves. Which of course does not include every adult human on the face of the planet but children and animals absolutly lack the ability to "speak" for themselves. Using Katrina for an example do the adults impacted need and deserve help? Without a doubt. But do the animals and the children and even adults who can't fend for themselves need help as well? My answer for this question is the same. It is the responisbilty of we in the middle and upper classes who can take action and can be heard to be the voice of those who lack that ability for whatever reason. Is that a bit clearer?

That is clear. My main issue is with the argument that animals cannot speak for themselves, and so they need more help than other groups. I think, obviously, that its equally important to help everyone where help is deserved and needed.