“Let them shoot you!” wrote 1 commenting on my authoritative Facebook profile. This had nothing to do with the subject of the alert on which the comment appeared, but many of my earlier remarks on priorities during the rescue.
The fanaticism and hatred that aggressive animal lovers spread is taboo. Meanwhile, it is 1 of the most pathological groups that can be found on the web, and it besides has its emanation in reality. Only political correctness makes it quiet.
I'll remind you where the last – but not the first – of a fight with pro-animal fanatics came from. Taking as a starting point the entry of 1 of the TSOs on the rescue during the flood of the dog from the island, I pointed out that specified actions are highly doubtful. I argued that even if this does not mean a direct distraction from man – if specified a decision were taken, the branch commander and the contractor would respond criminally – it is inactive harmful. During a crisis situation, rescuers do not have an unlimited amount of strength and each next action consumes them, and so they may not be able to save a man any time later. In addition, each action endangers the lives and wellness of lifeguards, and these are invaluable due to the fact that they let others to be saved.
Incidentally, shortly after, there was a communicative of a 54-year-old man who waited 9 hours for aid in the island in the mediate of his flooded settlement in the Deaf. This – despite the neighbors' calls to the service – did not come. An evil question might be asked if it was a dog, but aid would not come.
I pointed out that I have no problem saving pets together with their owners – in specified a situation resources are only consumed once. Another issue is besides the rescue of livestock, which are the livestock of the breeder.
Emotions remain
The fanatic reaction evidently did not mention to the arguments used. Fanatics have it in common that they usage only 2 types of message: insults and threats. This powerful wave of hatred, including the death threats that hunters receive, is not noticed by pro-animal promoters, who are attached to even the media. For my entries, I was reminded by the editor Agnieszka Gozdyr – known for her insurmountable dislike of hunters and worship for animals – but she did not respond to the entry in which I showed her any of the selected comments directed to me and asked how she liked them.
The editor utilized the concept of empathy in her entries, which is worth stopping for a while. Empathy, or compassion, is frequently utilized in modern times as a locket to put emotion beyond reason. And this is simply a typical situation. 1 might even wonder whether empathy can be said at all in the case of man’s association with an animal, given that animals do not have personality and their actions are based on instinct. We can feel, at least theoretically, the emotions of another individual – which is not always intentional and right, due to the fact that we should fundamentally be guided by reason alternatively than emotions – but we are incapable to recreate the planet of “feeling” cows, cats, hamsters or dogs.
I do not compose about a wave of hatred towards people (those who have different opinions) from animal lovers to complain; net hatred does not impress me much – I have been dealing with it for years and I learned to ignore it a long time ago. However, this does not mean that I am incapable to measure its strength in peculiar threads, and believe me that this animal is on top.
Even the most intense political hatred yields to him. Therefore, I say that we are faced with a problem to say so, a strategy that is ignored by almost everyone. Hunters or animal tormentors (the second most rightly) are considered a problem, while the increasing fanaticism of animal defenders and the expanding degree of this illness are completely disregarded.
Baby or dog?
There are 2 ways to deal with this. The first is law enforcement. I know that they intend to push – and very rightly – hunters. In the Polish Hunting Union, a squad is to be formed to prosecute people violating the good name of hunters or threatening them. That's good, but it's not enough. Polish law treats people obstructing or preventing hunting very gently. According to the Law, Hunting Law (Article 52, paragraph 8) threatens only fines (i.e. up to PLN 5 thousand), restrictions on freedom or imprisonment for a year. Given the risks posed by specified persons and the financial losses they cause, these penalties should be powerfully increased. The services should look more closely at the activities of pro-animal organisations, especially those financed from abroad.
The second subject is to survey the phenomenon from the social and intellectual sides. As far as I know, no one's always done it systematically. It is clear that the fanatical attitude of any (absolutely not all) animal defenders is the consequence of the phenomenon of bambism, which I have described many times, besides on the PCh24 portal – so I will not repeat its thorough analysis here. However, it seems that Bambism is progressing and deepening, that is, it ceases to be a sociological curiosity and begins to exert a real influence on social life. Impact highly harmful.
I have just come to a discussion under the entry on X, which the author asked whether supporters of zones without children in transport or service premises would agree equally willingly to zones without "dogs". (I am here from the problem itself – as a liberal, I believe that this issue should be left to the fullest degree possible to the owner of the tabernacle.) 1 of the most frequently commented answers was the 1 written by a typical childless dog lover, who calculated what nuisance she thought the dog could not be, and the kid – yes.
I mean, it's like putting things on your head. No 1 will deny that a kid – especially a tiny 1 – can be burdensome for parents or even more surroundings, and a small older can be upset or ill-bred. We all know the phenomenon of horrible “bumbles”. But we're talking about children, people. Any problems with the presence of children among adults are at a completely different level than those resulting from the presence of animals – especially due to the fact that as Poland and the West we have a gigantic problem with demography, not with the shortage of animals.
Bidding at the level of "baby's screaming" but "dog can bark behind the wall around the clock" – from an anthropological point of view it is absurd. I think those who point out that fanatical worship for animals – mainly domestic, due to the fact that fanatics through their prism see all the animals, having usually no contact with livestock, not knowing the odor of a cattle or a pigsty – besides comes from the ease of building a relation with them. And this, in turn, fits into the general tendency to search for solutions and ways of life, requiring the least effort.
A regular dog doesn't even request peculiar training, and a cat can't. But their attachment (I would not usage the word “love” here, due to the fact that this feeling reserved for people – unless we add an adjective “animal”) is completely unconditional. In order to get a life with people – and those closest to them, and those we know more rapidly – 1 has to work a small or even hard. Unconditional relationships happen very rarely. Raising a kid and having a dog are matters on completely different levels – absolutely impossible to compare.
Moral superiority and problems with each other
I say that's the cognition that everyone out there, even in an unconscious way, has. Hence, most likely the incredible aggression of pro-animal fanatics, masking their subconscious belief that they have any deficit. This is simply a common phenomenon: aggression masks interior doubts.
There is another well-known phenomenon: the ease of building a conviction of moral superiority in itself. This is not a unique tendency for animal fanatics – precisely the same thing happens, for example, fans of Jerzy Owsiak. Just a fewer abusive words rapidly written on Facebook about the bad one, to feel a good thrill and to be able to say, “I am noble and better than this prick.”
But it would be worth exploring deeper. It would be interesting to read the answer to the question whether a individual would be willing to save – let it be that from the flood – his own dog or dog of any man, close or completely alien. specified a survey has been conducted before, possibly 2 decades ago, in the United States and conclusions were not optimistic. It would be good in specified a survey to break up respondents into groups depending on whether they have an animal and what their general attitude towards animals is and whether they are willing to put them at the same level as people. So I look forward to specified a investigation project!
Luke Warches
