2007-05-06 08:03:18 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Pets ➔ Other - Pets
Because they're not the same people.
Spending money on your pet is like spending money on your house or your car, it's a possession, so you're just improving something that already belongs to you, and all the benefit stays within your own control. Giving to the poor actually means you lose control of the money and the outcome.
2007-05-06 08:06:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If I had unlimited funds, I would say a complete buyout of a large company. Even at that, though, I do not think that I could go beyond three billion. I would only pay that much for an investment that I knew would generate revenue. If it was an item that would only serve one purpose and eventually depreciate in value, I suppose I would spent perhaps ten million on a home at the most. If, however, we are talking about my current budget, I have pretty much found my limits: a Fender Rhodes (vintage keyboard) $900; a trumpet and flügelhorn, both about $2,000; and the production costs of a full-length album, a little over $5,000. Usually music things justify forking over a fat stack of cash; but the idea is that those investments will ultimately turn around a profit.
2016-03-19 00:32:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
People have a choice, at least in america. There are places to get food and programs in place. People have been given the brain power, freedom of choice, all they have to do is get creative and they can survive. Pets are kept in houses or yards or tanks or cages. They have no choice. It's not right to keep an animal and not take care of it. I work very hard to keep from starving and if I want to spend my extra money on a pet, who is a family member, an adopted child, then I am allowed to do so in America, home of the brave, home of the free. It's my choice. Not that I have not given money to help the starving, but my pets are my children and I will help them first, it was my obligation when I adopted them. I can't feed all the starving people, but I can feed and take care of my pet who relies on me to do so. I made it a promise and I'll keep it.
Thanks for listening to my side.
2007-05-06 08:12:16 · answer #3 · answered by The Cat 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What is the correlation between pet ownership and starving people? Why not question the need to have armies and warfare, or the money ill spent by governments of all levels. There are a trillion and one ways people spend money as individuals, communities and nations. Obviously not all of them are wise.
My two cats provide hours of fun and companionship. If I donated the cost of caring for them to a worthy cause, I could get a tax benefit, but I would completely miss out on the emotional and health benefits of spending time with them on a daily basis. And no I would not get the same joy out of giving the money to a cause no matter how worthy.
Also you're argument is flawed on a fundamental level. The pet industry is worth billion$! It provides employment ( so food and housing) for A LOT of people.
2007-05-06 08:39:21 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The guy on the corner who is homeless is not my responsibility. The cat that I've had and choose to get 5 years ago is my responisibility. However, that doesn't mean that people don't care about other people. Some might think like me.. people can help themselves and just choose not too... animals dont' have a choice and rely on humans for help.
2007-05-06 13:20:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Generally, starving people don't own pets.
If people can afford to look after themselves, sometimes they choose to have children, or pets, or both!
Personally, I would go without food to feed an animal. We share our planet with many other life forms you know - it's not exactly weird to form attachments to them.
Chalice
2007-05-06 10:28:37 · answer #6 · answered by Chalice 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
When I adopted my animals, I took on the responsibility of seeing that they were well cared for. That doesn't mean I don't contribute to charities that feed hungry people; I do. But I believe my first obligation is to take care of my little corner of the world.
2007-05-06 08:11:24 · answer #7 · answered by Alice K 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
A lot of the problems with hunger in the world are more an issue of distribution problems than of lack of food & funds.
Prosperous countries send vast quantities of food to help the hungry. However, the problem often lies more in getting the food TO the hungry people, than in buying food for the hungry people. There's a lot of food already waiting to be distributed to hungry people in war-torn areas, but unsafe conditions and corruption hinder distribution of the food that is available.
2007-05-06 08:29:26 · answer #8 · answered by Bess2002 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is such a silly question. People have a right to spend their money anyway they like. That's just the way it is and there are plenty of people who donate their hard earned money to charity. Why do you feel that animals are less deserving than people? People care about their animals and take care of them, so what? If you feel so strongly about it why don't you donate all your money to the homeless or to the red cross and leave the rest of us alone.
2007-05-06 08:16:16 · answer #9 · answered by 3cats 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You sound as though you resent animals. If people are so poor that they can't feed themselves or their animals, they shouldn't,
But feeding and vet bills are a necessity for taking care of your beast. It says that in the bible. Thank God we have our companions.
People need them.
2007-05-06 08:12:04 · answer #10 · answered by mary 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋