A certain point that comes up from time to time, in one or another form:
It is a respectable point, but one without any real anchor. That is, certainly it might just be a cat in a bin, and what does that compare to fifty dogs facing euthanization after experiencing vicious cruelty at the hands of a human, or a little boy killed because a cop was afraid of a snake, or forty-seven dead civilians as a cost of war?
But the other edge of that rhetorical sword is a question of threshold: When is it acceptable to care?
People have passions, and many will take up a cause as a result of those passions. For some, the cause is animal neglect and abuse; for others, child abuse; still others might focus on war. Some, of course, will protest sound ordinances that might restrict where they can ride their motorcycle. The range of causes is almost as diverse as the people who undertake them.
But how do we measure those causes? Who pronounces them worthy? Certainly, a little boy killed by a cop shooting at a snake in a tree is of lesser magnitude—dispassionately speaking—than two hundred civilians destroyed in pursuit of one alleged terrorist. Certainly a cat thrown in a rubbish bin is of lesser magnitude than a child raped by her father.
Certes, there are others who disdain or despise certain causes for reasons of politic or magnitude, but a certain question persists: At what point are people allowed to care?
It seems that, often, many causes are ridiculed or diminished by others because it isn't important enough compared to other things going on in the world.
Should we fret about the cruelty of battery farming? Or should we ignore those problems—barring the occasional E. coli or Salmonella outbreak, as long as wars persist in the world, or children suffer grotesque abuse? Should we shrug off the story of how a guy once put a cat in a vise to hold it while he fetched his gun and shot the thing for pissing on his toolbox? After all, somewhere in town a wife is being beaten, and somewhere in the world a child is starving to death.
What is the threshold? By what standard do we give people permission to give a damn?
• "Even more amazing than the stupidity here is how outraged people are over this when much more horrible things go on all the time." (Giambattista, August 25, 2010)
• "I wonder why Michael Vick is more important to PETA than this episode." (§outh§tar, August 17, 2007)
• "The inhumane treatment of animals, esp. dogs and cats, in our cities and towns is almost worse than horrible ...and is damned sure worse than those fifty dogs of Michael Vick's." (Baron Max, August 25, 2007)
• "I wonder why Michael Vick is more important to PETA than this episode." (§outh§tar, August 17, 2007)
• "The inhumane treatment of animals, esp. dogs and cats, in our cities and towns is almost worse than horrible ...and is damned sure worse than those fifty dogs of Michael Vick's." (Baron Max, August 25, 2007)
It is a respectable point, but one without any real anchor. That is, certainly it might just be a cat in a bin, and what does that compare to fifty dogs facing euthanization after experiencing vicious cruelty at the hands of a human, or a little boy killed because a cop was afraid of a snake, or forty-seven dead civilians as a cost of war?
But the other edge of that rhetorical sword is a question of threshold: When is it acceptable to care?
People have passions, and many will take up a cause as a result of those passions. For some, the cause is animal neglect and abuse; for others, child abuse; still others might focus on war. Some, of course, will protest sound ordinances that might restrict where they can ride their motorcycle. The range of causes is almost as diverse as the people who undertake them.
But how do we measure those causes? Who pronounces them worthy? Certainly, a little boy killed by a cop shooting at a snake in a tree is of lesser magnitude—dispassionately speaking—than two hundred civilians destroyed in pursuit of one alleged terrorist. Certainly a cat thrown in a rubbish bin is of lesser magnitude than a child raped by her father.
Certes, there are others who disdain or despise certain causes for reasons of politic or magnitude, but a certain question persists: At what point are people allowed to care?
It seems that, often, many causes are ridiculed or diminished by others because it isn't important enough compared to other things going on in the world.
Should we fret about the cruelty of battery farming? Or should we ignore those problems—barring the occasional E. coli or Salmonella outbreak, as long as wars persist in the world, or children suffer grotesque abuse? Should we shrug off the story of how a guy once put a cat in a vise to hold it while he fetched his gun and shot the thing for pissing on his toolbox? After all, somewhere in town a wife is being beaten, and somewhere in the world a child is starving to death.
What is the threshold? By what standard do we give people permission to give a damn?