CHALLENGE:

100 people needed - dogs are out in the cold - please donate $14.10 -
100 people needed to open shelter building.

http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/WV119.html

"Loveanimals" wrote in message
...
CHALLENGE:

100 people needed - dogs are out in the cold - please donate $14.10 -
100 people needed to open shelter building.

http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/WV119.html

Sorry, I don't support anyone who tries to guilt me in to something. Present
me the facts, not emotional appeals.

Dale

In article zYIcl.5516$Db2.1056@edtnps83,
Dale Atkin wrote:
Sorry, I don't support anyone who tries to guilt me in to something. Present
me the facts, not emotional appeals.

??? Compassion, thy name is not *exactly* aspiring
veterinarian Atkins.

I don't like to see those kinds of ads on Usenet because if
they become common they'll crowd out discussion, but it
seems to me that the issue here is precisely an appeal to
empathy and that's a good thing to appeal to. If you care
about animals maybe you ought to examine where that caring
comes from, why you care, and whether or not it's "rational"
to care.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

"Melinda Shore" wrote in message
...
In article zYIcl.5516$Db2.1056@edtnps83,
Dale Atkin wrote:
Sorry, I don't support anyone who tries to guilt me in to something.
Present
me the facts, not emotional appeals.

??? Compassion, thy name is not *exactly* aspiring
veterinarian Atkins.

That's Ok, my name's not Atkins .


I don't like to see those kinds of ads on Usenet because if
they become common they'll crowd out discussion, but it
seems to me that the issue here is precisely an appeal to
empathy and that's a good thing to appeal to.

I prefer appeals to reason. I feel bad for animals in need, I really do, but
why should I give to some random group on the internet as opposed to my
local shelter?

I specifically have a problem with the "When we buy from a breeder we help
kill this dog" kind of argument. It's the same objection of I have to the
Canadian Blood Services campaign to get people to donate blood. Rather than
saying "You're good for helping us", they're saying "You're an ass if you
don't".

I have similar objections to the "Mothers against chaining dogs" on the
page. Why? Because not all chained dogs are bad dogs. Sometimes it's a
cultural difference (Just think how you'd feel if someone told you you
needed to keep your pet chicken in the house.). My dogs live in the house,
but just because someone keeps their dog outside doesn't make them a bad
owner.

I object to being told that anyone who doesn't spay/neuter is contributing
to the animal overpopulation problem (All my animals are, but if you don't
and are responsible, I don't have a problem with it).

I also don't believe 'no kill' is practical in any meaningful way. It's a
great goal, unfortunately the reality of the situation is somewhat
different. As long as the rate of incoming dogs is greater than the rate of
outgoing dogs, you're going to run in to an overcrowding problem. At this
point, you'll either have to start filtering at the door (in which case the
less desirable animals are the ones that end up at the other shelters), or
you have to start reducing the number of dogs you have in house. This means
selecting the least adoptable dogs, and culling them. Then there are issues
that arise when you get an animal in the shelter that really is unadoptable
for all intents and purposes (serious (and ongoing expensive) medical
problems with highly shortened lifespan), is it fair that in a true
'no-kill' shelter this animal will have to spend their whole life in the
shelter?

Dale

In article ENJcl.5524$Db2.4532@edtnps83,
Dale Atkin wrote:
I prefer appeals to reason. I feel bad for animals in need, I really do, but
why should I give to some random group on the internet as opposed to my
local shelter?

What's this "as opposed to" stuff?

Anyway, your litany of complaints aren't "rational." They
reflect your preferences and resentments. There's an
unfortunate tendency for some kinds of people (and as a
techie I run into rafts of 'em) to label their own biases as
"rational" and other people's biases as "irrational."
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

"Melinda Shore" wrote in message
...
In article ENJcl.5524$Db2.4532@edtnps83,
Dale Atkin wrote:
I prefer appeals to reason. I feel bad for animals in need, I really do,
but
why should I give to some random group on the internet as opposed to my
local shelter?

What's this "as opposed to" stuff?

I have a certain number of dollars. That number is not infinite. Therefore,
a choice must be made as to how to allocate scarce resources. No, its not a
zero-sum game, I admit, but then why shouldn't I give the money that I was
going to give to them, to my local shelter, instead of giving to them? What
makes them able to make better use of it?


Anyway, your litany of complaints aren't "rational."

I'll admit some (although not all) of what I said was based on personal
beliefs, this is why *their* arguments need to be based on reason, so these
kinds of arguments can't be made.

Specifically not based on belief is the arguments about a 'no-kill' shelter,
which is their stated goal.

If the rate of incoming animals is greater than the rate of outgoing
animals, the size of the shelter and the resources allocated to them are
irrelevant. The number of animals in their care will grow, consuming more
resources (or each animal will be allocated less resources, at which point
you end up in a hoarder situation). This makes a 'no-kill' shelter
difficult, if not impossible to maintain. I want to know that they have
recognized this and know how they are going to deal with this.

I challenge anyone to present me with an open door, no-kill shelter. I've
not seen one yet, and I don't believe its possible to maintain one.

They
reflect your preferences and resentments. There's an
unfortunate tendency for some kinds of people (and as a
techie I run into rafts of 'em) to label their own biases as
"rational" and other people's biases as "irrational."

Did I ever say I was rational? Or that they were irrational? I said that
they trying to guilt me (which may in fact be a highly rational thing to do,
as many people will apparently respond to these tactics. I won't. I rebel
against them.).

My last post was pointing out the problems I have with what is on their
page, and why I specifically am unwilling to support the a group with these
stated goals and positions, and things I'd encourage others who hold these
positions to think about before they support them.

Dale

In article 6jKcl.5532$Db2.2895@edtnps83,
Dale Atkin wrote:
My last post was pointing out the problems I have with what is on their
page, and why I specifically am unwilling to support the a group with these
stated goals and positions, and things I'd encourage others who hold these
positions to think about before they support them.

Your initial post was that you rejected their appeal because
1) you implied that if you gave to them you couldn't/
wouldn't give to a local shelter, and 2) their appeal was to
people's empathy. I think the first is not a good general
objection (I give to more than one charity, as do most of my
friends) and the second is just kind of sociopathic. I
think it's good that you changed your arguments.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

Your initial post was that you rejected their appeal because
1) you implied that if you gave to them you couldn't/
wouldn't give to a local shelter,

Actually this was in my second post, not my first post. Hopefully I've
clarified things here.

and 2) their appeal was to
people's empathy.

There is a difference between appeal to empathy, and appeal to guilt (at
least to me there is). Appealing to empathy is about trying to make people
understand a problem, and feel moved to do something about it (and doing
something is therefore something you can feel good about). Appeal to guilt
(in my eyes) is about trying to make people feel like they are bad people
for not doing 'x' (rather than good for doing 'x'). As a rule, I refuse to
give to any organization that tries to make me feel guilty. I feel similarly
about charities that send out 'freebies' (Christmas cards, address labels,
calendars, etc) and then ask you for a donation. Similar arguments against
the 'suggested donations', or 'recurring donations' that many charities have
decided to put on their solicitations (some of which are ridiculously huge).

I get sick and tired of seeing "Yes, I'd like to donate [ ] $50, [ ] $100,
[ ] $150, [ ] other ____" on the back of a charitable solicitation I'd
actually think about contributing to. Frankly if I want to contribute $5,
they should be grateful for it, not try to manipulate me in to donating
more. It must work though, because they continue to do it. It just won't
work on me.

I think the first is not a good general
objection (I give to more than one charity, as do most of my
friends) and the second is just kind of sociopathic. I
think it's good that you changed your arguments.

I've decided that my personal contributions are based on who comes to my
door. If someone cares enough about a charity to physically come around to
my door, then the least I can do is give them a few dollars (assuming its
not a 'cause' I object to).

Dale

Melinda Shore wrote:

??? Compassion, thy name is not *exactly* aspiring
veterinarian Atkins.

I don't like to see those kinds of ads on Usenet because if
they become common they'll crowd out discussion, but it
seems to me that the issue here is precisely an appeal to
empathy and that's a good thing to appeal to. If you care
about animals maybe you ought to examine where that caring
comes from, why you care, and whether or not it's "rational"
to care.

And yet you devote so much time to arguing about non issues, spreading
flames and lies that aren't anywhere near the definition of discussion.

And denying what you do to animals....

In article ,
chardonnay9 wrote:
And yet you devote so much time to arguing about non issues, spreading
flames and lies that aren't anywhere near the definition of discussion.

It's because I care about animals that I believe you need to
be shut down. Your uneducated, inexperienced, uninformed
and wacko advice could easily hurt or kill a dog. Look what
you did to your own.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community