Juror#8 Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 I CANNOT watch those Humane Society commercials with Sarah McLachlan. You know, these: Literally, I scramble to find the remote control to turn the channel. I physically cannot watch the commercial. They have a real emotional impact on me. Those commercials literally make me sad. My fiance cries when they come on. It's pretty serious stuff. BUT.... I have no such problems watching UNICEF commercials - you know, the ones with the kids (actual HUMANS) from different countries who are hungry, abjectly impoverished, feeble, homeless, and only require 70 cents a day to combat malnutrition. I feel so bad for those folks but it doesn't impact me the same way. I'm sympathetic but not sad; concerned but not crushed. I was eating a 5 Guys burger and fries while the UNICEF commercial played the other day. I didn't have to turn the channel. I wasn't overly emotional. My fiance was drinking a Starbucks Frappaccino. She wasn't crying. That seems so incongruent. Literally, it makes no sense. I thought it was just me, but it is the same with my fiance. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Anyone else have this issue? Is this the product of some desensitization? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Those commercials with Sarah McLachlan creep me out. She's just a creepy woman. Maybe the pet commercials hit closer to home? It's not every day that you see little African children walked past your house on a leash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Maybe desensitization... What do you want to do? Get this moved to PPP. I will reserve comment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0q4o58pKwA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Interesting question. Oddly, it seems that we're more horrified about human misery in the abstract. I can remember being sick to my stomach thinking about the people of Haiti crushed under their buildings. But when it came to watching the actual coverage, I was closer to just...interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 I CANNOT watch those Humane Society commercials with Sarah McLachlan. You know, these: youtube.com/watch?v=9gspElv1yvc Literally, I scramble to find the remote control to turn the channel. I physically cannot watch the commercial. They have a real emotional impact on me. Those commercials literally make me sad. Me too, those commercials make me sad I just want to run down to the humane society an rescue them all BUT.... I have no such problems watching UNICEF commercials - you know, the ones with the kids (actual HUMANS) from different countries who are hungry, abjectly impoverished, feeble, homeless, and only require 70 cents a day to combat malnutrition. Again, me too. I was eating a 5 Guys burger and fries while the UNICEF commercial played the other day. I didn't have to turn the channel. I wasn't overly emotional. My fiance was drinking a Starbucks Frappaccino. She wasn't crying. One of those "Save the Children" commercials start off with "What did you eat for dinner last night". I think I had a steak that weighed more than that kid on TV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Those commercials with Sarah McLachlan creep me out. She's just a creepy woman. Maybe the pet commercials hit closer to home? It's not every day that you see little African children walked past your house on a leash. I can think of nothing to say here that will not get me in trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 (edited) Those REALLY disturb me too. I think it's that most dogs are better than people. Add in that it's not the fault of the animal that they have been exposed to such direct cruelty by their owners. While the children in the other commercials aren't living to an American standard (and yet, my grasp on this concept is slipping by the day. Does that mean exposure to media violence, over-processed junk food and 60% of a population around them that's more concerned by what's happening on their smartphone than the real world?) they are in that situation not by direct cruelty of their parents/guardians but because of complex political problems that, if enough people were to do something in that country, the tyranny that impels the thing could be thrown off. It's sad to see , but as a society, you made your bed, now lie in it. If you don't like the bed, do something else. The recent troubles here in the U.S. have made it abundantly clear that we can't afford to keep doling out to everybody either privately or publicly. We've forgiven so many loans to African/Eastern European/etc. countries in the last century you lose count. And bear in mind that this all goes to our national debt, taking food out of our grandchildren's mouths to feed someone in another country. Another country that will never return the favor if/when the tables are turned, and in fact runs the risk of feeding someone who becomes our enemy. (AFAIK, dogs and cats will never be gleefully flying airplanes into the Freedom Tower.) We've been doing this for 40 years and there's been little or no improvement. Feeding and watering and basic-educating a few kids is hacking at the branches of a problem, rather than striking the root. Give a man a fish / teach a man to fish, and all that. Animals don't get a voice or a vote to get out of situations like that. I will forever hate Michael Vick. It's a travesty that he's out of jail after murdering so many dogs, and a millionaire again to boot. Edited August 2, 2012 by UConn James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted August 2, 2012 Author Share Posted August 2, 2012 Interesting question. Oddly, it seems that we're more horrified about human misery in the abstract. I can remember being sick to my stomach thinking about the people of Haiti crushed under their buildings. But when it came to watching the actual coverage, I was closer to just...interested. I have the exact same response. Hearing about that huge tsunamis in India was very sad. I wanted to give and give big to help. Conceptually, the thought of it was heart-wrenching. But to see the affected people on television was different....almost manageable. It was still sad, and I was/am very sympathetic to their situation and pray for their well-being, but I wasn't as emotionally affected as what I was when the media was discussing the situation generically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Those REALLY disturb me too. I think it's that most dogs are better than people. Add in that it's not the fault of the animal that they have been exposed to such direct cruelty by their owners. While the children in the other commercials aren't living to an American standard (and yet, my grasp on this concept is slipping by the day. Does that mean exposure to media violence, over-processed junk food and 60% of a population around them that's more concerned by what's happening on their smartphone than the real world?) they are in that situation not by direct cruelty of their parents/guardians but because of complex political problems that, if enough people were to do something in that country, the tyranny that impels the thing could be thrown off. It's sad to see , but as a society, you made your bed, now lie in it. If you don't like the bed, do something else. The recent troubles here in the U.S. have made it abundantly clear that we can't afford to keep doling out to everybody either privately or publicly. We've forgiven so many loans to African/Eastern European/etc. countries in the last century you lose count (and bear in mind that this all goes to our national debt, taking food out of our grandchildren's mouths to feed someone in another country. Another country that will never return the favor if/when the tables are turned) and there's been little or no improvement. Feeding and watering and basic-educating a few kids is hacking at the branches of a problem, rather than striking the root. Give a man a fish / teach a man to fish, and all that. Animals don't get a voice or a vote to get out of situations like that. I will forever hate Michael Vick. It's a travesty that he's out of jail after murdering so many dogs, and a millionaire again to boot. And yet, small children are no more responsible for "making the bed" of society than dogs are. Never met a kindergartener who oppressed anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Showing compassion for suffering animals is one of the most humanly compassionate acts I can think of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 (edited) And yet, small children are no more responsible for "making the bed" of society than dogs are. Never met a kindergartener who oppressed anyone. True. The above was looking at it from a lower-power magnification / macrocosm / one-generation-blends-into-another. Animals are completely wanton; People have some degree of free will. Should we/others have to enable a people into complacency or is it 'better' for them to make their own choices and, to quote Goethe, be forced to "sweep their own doorstep"? Edited August 2, 2012 by UConn James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 People suck and dogs are cool so it's more difficult to watch the Humane Society commericals than Save the Children. Plus that damn Sara McLachlan song is enough to make you cry all by itself. I wouldn't be surprised if that one hadn't inspired a couple suicides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 True. The above was looking at it from a lower-power magnification / macrocosm / one-generation-blends-into-another. Animals are completely wanton; People have some degree of free will. Should we/others have to enable a people into complacency or is it 'better' for them to make their own choices and, to quote Goethe, be forced to "sweep their own doorstep"? And you can argue that humans are innately responsible to them. As far as I know, domesticated animals are the only example of one species selectively breeding another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 I have the exact same response. Hearing about that huge tsunamis in India was very sad. I wanted to give and give big to help. Conceptually, the thought of it was heart-wrenching. But to see the affected people on television was different....almost manageable. It was still sad, and I was/am very sympathetic to their situation and pray for their well-being, but I wasn't as emotionally affected as what I was when the media was discussing the situation generically. I must be extremely unusual, then, because I feel exactly the opposite. It goes a long way towards explaining why y'all think I'm such an !@#$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted August 2, 2012 Author Share Posted August 2, 2012 Those REALLY disturb me too. I think it's that most dogs are better than people. Add in that it's not the fault of the animal that they have been exposed to such direct cruelty by their owners. While the children in the other commercials aren't living to an American standard (and yet, my grasp on this concept is slipping by the day. Does that mean exposure to media violence, over-processed junk food and 60% of a population around them that's more concerned by what's happening on their smartphone than the real world?) they are in that situation not by direct cruelty of their parents/guardians but because of complex political problems that, if enough people were to do something in that country, the tyranny that impels the thing could be thrown off. It's sad to see , but as a society, you made your bed, now lie in it. If you don't like the bed, do something else. The recent troubles here in the U.S. have made it abundantly clear that we can't afford to keep doling out to everybody either privately or publicly. We've forgiven so many loans to African/Eastern European/etc. countries in the last century you lose count. And bear in mind that this all goes to our national debt, taking food out of our grandchildren's mouths to feed someone in another country. Another country that will never return the favor if/when the tables are turned, and in fact runs the risk of feeding someone who becomes our enemy. (AFAIK, dogs and cats will never be gleefully flying airplanes into the Freedom Tower.) We've been doing this for 40 years and there's been little or no improvement. Feeding and watering and basic-educating a few kids is hacking at the branches of a problem, rather than striking the root. Give a man a fish / teach a man to fish, and all that. Animals don't get a voice or a vote to get out of situations like that. I will forever hate Michael Vick. It's a travesty that he's out of jail after murdering so many dogs, and a millionaire again to boot. I think that this has a lot to do with it. Something about pets (especially dogs) being loyal, loving unconditionally, having innocence, etc. makes them more sympathetic beings. But you can say the same thing about children. Maybe it's because the expectation is that a human can grow and improve their circumstances whereas a dog can't. If a dog mis-treated, that circumstance won't change. Maybe that is the difference... I must be extremely unusual, then, because I feel exactly the opposite. It goes a long way towards explaining why y'all think I'm such an !@#$. About the dogs/humans example or the conceptual disaster totals vs. the personalized example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Avenger Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 2 factors take away the impact of the ads featuring hungry kids that I don't think you get in the animal ads: 1 - For me there is some skepticism about how much of my money would actually go to that hungry kid - seems like there are lots of people between me and him, including people putting together glitzy advertising for future campaigns and government officials that need to be bribed to actually let aid get to those who need it - I don't really feel that with the animal ads 2 - The thought that the hungry kid is actually being used in some way - I remember feeling pretty negative about the Christian Children's fund - not because I hate christians, but because I felt their real mission was to ensure the hungry kid was educated about christianity. Looking at that hungry kid, religion was the least of his worries - he needs food and water - I'm not really concerned about what god he prays to. I kind of got the feeling that the main goal was getting christian converts in the third world - the benefit for joing up was that you got needed food - doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 About the dogs/humans example or the conceptual disaster totals vs. the personalized example? The latter - disasters in the abstract vs. individual suffering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Those commercials with Sarah McLachlan creep me out. She's just a creepy woman. Maybe the pet commercials hit closer to home? It's not every day that you see little African children walked past your house on a leash. Clearly, you've never been to Elma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 I think that this has a lot to do with it. Something about pets (especially dogs) being loyal, loving unconditionally, having innocence, etc. makes them more sympathetic beings. But you can say the same thing about children. Maybe it's because the expectation is that a human can grow and improve their circumstances whereas a dog can't. If a dog mis-treated, that circumstance won't change. Maybe that is the difference... About the dogs/humans example or the conceptual disaster totals vs. the personalized example? You are not alone in the way you react to the two different commercials. My gf and I made the same observation not too long ago. I was going to post something along the lines of the bold, but see the discussion has already made it there. Animals are kept and abused. They have no way of ever understanding our world that they live in, or what is happening to them, or why. Nor do they have the ability to escape it and gain independence. Pets are completely dependent on their humans for their entire lives. This is why I feel that animal abuse is just as vile and on par with child abuse. It is the taking advantage of a creature that has no other choice but to trust and depend on you that is so sickening. When I see people starving because they live in the desert, I feel bad for them, but I also think "Then start walking! Get out of there!" Why would they stay in a place that can not grow food or provide water, for generation after generation? Start migrating like our ancestors did! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Clearly, you've never been to Elma. I know I shouldn't laugh...but I can't help myself... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts