NationStates Jolt Archive

Animals are more important than humans???

Way back in 1999, a web site was established to aid people dying of starvation and I added a link to that web site on my Geocities web site shortly after The Hunger Site (http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=1) was launched. I still have that link on the same web page figuring that it was an great way to help out suffering people around the world.

About the Hunger Site (http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive/aboutus.faces;jsessionid=93AC98F93CFA425794942F645CA996BB.ctgProd01?siteId=1&link=ctg_ths_aboutus_from_home_leftnav):

The Hunger Site was founded to focus the power of the Internet on a specific humanitarian need; the eradication of world hunger. Since its launch in June 1999, the site has established itself as a leader in online activism, helping to feed the world's hungry and food insecure. On average, over 220,000 individuals from around the world visit the site each day to click the yellow "Click Here to Give - it's FREE" button. To date, more that 200 million visitors have given more than 300 million cups of staple food. Its grassroots popularity has been recognized with Web awards in the activism category — the 2000 Cool Site of the Year Award and the People's Voice winner at the 2000 Webby Awards.
My beef: since the Hunger Site was established, more "Click to Give" sites were added to the main site, supporting causes such as Breast Cancer, Child Health, Literacy, Rainforests and Animal Rescue, and guess where by far MOST people click these days......Animal Rescue.

The difference in numbers is astounding!!!

Last year (2008):

Hunger Site: 2008 58,615,830 clicks

Breast Cancer: 2008 101,674,843 clicks

Child Health Site: 2008 43,044,195 clicks

Literacy Site: 2008 42,663,551 clicks

Rainforest Site: 2008 45,392,545 clicks

Animal Rescue Site: 2008 111,757,501 clicks

I don't have a problem with pets or animals, but what the hell is wrong with peoples' thinking these days?

Because all humans are evil, except those who value the lives of animals over humans. Because humans are horrible, nasty creatures, who don't deserve to live. (Bit of an exaggeration here, for the blind)

Animals look cute, trees don't. Neither does cancer or starving children. Or books.


"awwwwwwww* throw some money at the cute stuff!

Animals look cute, trees don't. Neither does cancer or starving children. Or books.


"awwwwwwww* throw some money at the cute stuff!
Scary huh?

Human nature sometimes is.

To be fair, breast cancer isn't far behind, and collectively the others heavily outweigh animals. But yes, it seems a little odd.

Animals taste better than humans. *nod*

Maybe...people want to help animals more because they feel in a certain way guilty about it - animals need to be rescued because of how humans treat them. But that same principle applies to rainforests, which aren't as popular so...
Maybe the Animal Rescue click site is just better advertised?

Animals taste better than humans. *nod*
Are you suggesting fattening up the animals for consumption?

Death is inevitable for animals and humans alike. The importance either one is actually nil relative to the universe itself.

Maybe...people want to help animals more because they feel in a certain way guilty about it - animals need to be rescued because of how humans treat them. But that same principle applies to rainforests, which aren't as popular so...
Maybe the Animal Rescue click site is just better advertised?
How about the way humans treat humans?

Animals are more important than humans???

Way back in 1999, a web site was established to aid people dying of starvation and I added a link to that web site on my Geocities web site shortly after The Hunger Site (http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=1) was launched. I still have that link on the same web page figuring that it was an great way to help out suffering people around the world.

About the Hunger Site (http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive/aboutus.faces;jsessionid=93AC98F93CFA425794942F645CA996BB.ctgProd01?siteId=1&link=ctg_ths_aboutus_from_home_leftnav):


My beef: since the Hunger Site was established, more "Click to Give" sites were added to the main site, supporting causes such as Breast Cancer, Child Health, Literacy, Rainforests and Animal Rescue, and guess where by far MOST people click these days......Animal Rescue.

The difference in numbers is astounding!!!

Last year (2008):

Hunger Site: 2008 58,615,830 clicks

Breast Cancer: 2008 101,674,843 clicks

Child Health Site: 2008 43,044,195 clicks

Literacy Site: 2008 42,663,551 clicks

Rainforest Site: 2008 45,392,545 clicks

Animal Rescue Site: 2008 111,757,501 clicks

I don't have a problem with pets or animals, but what the hell is wrong with peoples' thinking these days?
so youre whining because the animal people are more organized than you are?

Are you suggesting fattening up the animals for consumption?

Depends how cute they are.

Death is inevitable for animals and humans alike. The importance either one is actually nil relative to the universe itself.
Yet it appears that humans value animals over their fellow humans.

Death is inevitable for animals and humans alike. The importance either one is actually nil relative to the universe itself.

My, you are a little ray of sunshine today aren't you!

Don't make me use my carebearstare on you!

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mIQkickPJig/SB85PZypolI/AAAAAAAAACY/t6DP0M-5bks/s400/Care+Bear+Stare.jpg

so youre whining because the animal people are more organized than you are?
Whining.....me whine? If that is what you call it then perhaps you have a problem?

Whining.....me whine? If that is what you call it then perhaps you have a problem?
what else is it?

you cant stand that some other charity got more clicks than yours.

My, you are a little ray of sunshine today aren't you!

I accept that when all things considered we as a species and as planet are of little concern. It takes a load of ones chest and certainly frees me up to live how I want to live, go where I want to go and do what I want to do. Everyday is the best day of my life, even if it means all I've done is sit at my computer or climbed a mountain. :)

what else is it?

you cant stand that some other charity got more clicks than yours.

Congrats! You've taken his words and twisted them around to mean something they were never intended to mean! You don't win! Hooray!

Congrats! You've taken his words and twisted them around to mean something they were never intended to mean! You don't win! Hooray!
then what is his point?

more people clicked the animal link than his link. boo freaking hoo.

Congrats! You've taken his words and twisted them around to mean something they were never intended to mean! You don't win! Hooray!

Technically he admits it is "his beef" that they got more clicks than his chosen charity. But I didn't see that as the focus of the post.

then what is his point?

more people clicked the animal link than his link. boo freaking hoo.

More people clicked the animal rescue link than any of the other human-related links, including BREAST CANCER, WORLD HUNGER, CHILD HEALTH, and FREAKING LITERACY!

More people clicked the animal rescue link than any of the other human-related links, including BREAST CANCER, WORLD HUNGER, CHILD HEALTH, and FREAKING LITERACY!
OHMYGOD

its still whining.

so the animal people click more. as i said boo freaking hoo.

More people clicked the animal rescue link than any of the other human-related links, including BREAST CANCER, WORLD HUNGER, CHILD HEALTH, and FREAKING LITERACY!

Is that a problem?

OHMYGOD

its still whining.

so the animal people click more. as i said boo freaking hoo.
It's a legitimate complaint about the state of the world where there are almost twice the amount of people who click, and thus presumably care, about animal rescue than sick children, hunger across the world, and other sorry human states. Maybe you should stop whining about someone who doesn't share the same view as you. You come off as whining far more than the OP does.
Is that a problem?
Yes, see above reasoning.

OHMYGOD

its still whining.

so the animal people click more. as i said boo freaking hoo.
I was trying to underscore the significance with the way humans react to a given condition. Obviously more people are concerned about animals then human suffering. If you look at the site, the Hunger Site is the first link on the left...fairly well organized I would say and certainly out there much longer than the Animal Rescue.

The fact that you would turn this into a flame fest suggests that maybe you are more inclined to elivate animal issues over human issues?

I wonder if people don't realize that they can click on all the links every day, and they all count. They must think they have to choose one cause to donate their click to or something.

Technically he admits it is "his beef" that they got more clicks than his chosen charity. But I didn't see that as the focus of the post.
Yes...the focus of the post is to bring awareness to the issue and yes to support more clicks on the human issues.

It's a legitimate complaint about the state of the world where there are almost twice the amount of people who click, and thus presumably care, about animal rescue than sick children, hunger across the world, and other sorry human states. Maybe you should stop whining about someone who doesn't share the same view as you. You come off as whining far more than the OP does.

Yes, see above reasoning.
no it isnt. its meaningless.

I wonder if people don't realize that they can click on all the links every day, and they all count. They must think they have to choose one cause to donate their click to or something.
Excellent point....thanks for raising the awareness. :)

It's meaningless because I say so, for I am master of all. You must obey MY rules when you are in MY forum. That is all.

A bit more straightforward translation.

no it isnt. its meaningless.

Why is suggesting that there is evidence for more people caring about animal welfare than human welfare, meaningless?

EDIT: Right - it's the reliability of the evidence you have an issue with. Wasn't very clear in your posts.

I was trying to underscore the significance with the way humans react to a given condition. Obviously more people are concerned about animals then human suffering. If you look at the site, the Hunger Site is the first link on the left...fairly well organized I would say and certainly out there much longer than the Animal Rescue.

The fact that you would turn this into a flame fest suggests that maybe you are more inclined to elivate animal issues over human issues?
oh is that supposed to damn me somehow?

you are over reacting to a situation that you cant judge. maybe the animal people are more organized for clicking. maybe the average person clicks twice with a people cause being their first choice and the animal cause being their second choice. maybe the people people think its better to give their own money and the animal people would rather just click.

to use this as an example of people's wrong headedness is silly.

Why is suggesting that there is evidence for more people caring about animal welfare than human welfare, meaningless?
because its a meaningless example of it. there are too many variables that we can know nothing about.

I was trying to underscore the significance with the way humans react to a given condition. Obviously more people are concerned about animals then human suffering. If you look at the site, the Hunger Site is the first link on the left...fairly well organized I would say and certainly out there much longer than the Animal Rescue.

The fact that you would turn this into a flame fest suggests that maybe you are more inclined to elivate animal issues over human issues?

Such internet polls/click sites are a poor judge of how concerned humanity is with the given situations. We all know the flaws associated with the internet, gathering useful factual data from click sites does not happen I'm afraid.

Animals are more important than humans???

Way back in 1999, a web site was established to aid people dying of starvation and I added a link to that web site on my Geocities web site shortly after The Hunger Site (http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=1) was launched. I still have that link on the same web page figuring that it was an great way to help out suffering people around the world.

About the Hunger Site (http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive/aboutus.faces;jsessionid=93AC98F93CFA425794942F645CA996BB.ctgProd01?siteId=1&link=ctg_ths_aboutus_from_home_leftnav):


My beef: since the Hunger Site was established, more "Click to Give" sites were added to the main site, supporting causes such as Breast Cancer, Child Health, Literacy, Rainforests and Animal Rescue, and guess where by far MOST people click these days......Animal Rescue.

The difference in numbers is astounding!!!

Last year (2008):

Hunger Site: 2008 58,615,830 clicks

Breast Cancer: 2008 101,674,843 clicks

Child Health Site: 2008 43,044,195 clicks

Literacy Site: 2008 42,663,551 clicks

Rainforest Site: 2008 45,392,545 clicks

Animal Rescue Site: 2008 111,757,501 clicks

I don't have a problem with pets or animals, but what the hell is wrong with peoples' thinking these days?

Hunger site... people. Breast cancer site... people. Child health site... people. Literacy site... people.

Rainforest site... trees?

Animal rescue site... animals.

So - Animals get 112 million clicks, trees get 45 million clicks, and people 'only' get 250 million clicks.


Um

What's the complaint here?

So - Animals get 112 million clicks, trees get 45 million clicks, and people 'only' get 250 million clicks.

What's the complaint here?

Don't bring maths into this! The last thing we need is logic!

Anyway, it's irrelevant as it could be that the numbers are skewed by some serious OCD sufferers. ;)

oh is that supposed to damn me somehow?

you are over reacting to a situation that you cant judge. maybe the animal people are more organized for clicking. maybe the average person clicks twice with a people cause being their first choice and the animal cause being their second choice. maybe the people people think its better to give their own money and the animal people would rather just click.

to use this as an example of people's wrong headedness is silly.
It would appear that you have nothing meaningful to add. Perhaps you should choose another thread? :D

It would appear that you have nothing meaningful to add. Perhaps you should choose another thread? :D

If I had to add something meaningful, I'd never get to add anything. :p

It would appear that you have nothing meaningful to add. Perhaps you should choose another thread? :D
you should be so lucky

If I had to add something meaningful, I'd never get to add anything. :p

Hilarity has meaning, LG.:D

If I had to add something meaningful, I'd never get to add anything. :p
At least you acknowledge that you are on the "edge of insanity" and didn't put the boots to me. :)

It's a legitimate complaint about the state of the world where there are almost twice the amount of people who click, and thus presumably care, about animal rescue than sick children, hunger across the world, and other sorry human states. Maybe you should stop whining about someone who doesn't share the same view as you. You come off as whining far more than the OP does.

Yes, see above reasoning.

How is that sorry?

People are still giving to charity. And as noted before, the clicks for the human related charities add up to quite a bit more than the animal welfare charity.

Why do you hate the ability to choose which charity to donate to? Why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the USA?;)

Hunger site... people. Breast cancer site... people. Child health site... people. Literacy site... people.

Rainforest site... trees?

Animal rescue site... animals.

So - Animals get 112 million clicks, trees get 45 million clicks, and people 'only' get 250 million clicks.


Um

What's the complaint here?
I wonder if people don't realize that they can click on all the links every day, and they all count. They must think they have to choose one cause to donate their click to or something.
This ^^^^

How is that sorry?

People are still giving to charity. And as noted before, the clicks for the human related charities add up to quite a bit more than the animal welfare charity.

Why do you hate the ability to choose which charity to donate to? Why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the USA?;)

Because I'd prefer that small children have heath care, and that third world countries get enough food to feed their population more than rescuing a few troublesome dogs and cats off the streets, only to be put to sleep a few days later, because people already have dogs and cats of their own?

Because I'd prefer that small children have heath care, and that third world countries get enough food to feed their population more than rescuing a few troublesome dogs and cats off the streets, only to be put to sleep a few days later, because people already have dogs and cats of their own?
there are thousands of charities in the world. there is room for all of them even if they dont deal with what you think is the most important problem.

there are thousands of charities in the world. there is room for all of them even if they dont deal with what you think is the most important problem.

And yet the whole point of this thread is discussing viewpoints on said charities. Namely, why the charities that address rescuing animals are getting more attention than ones that discuss world hunger.

People are animals, therefore we all win

This ^^^^

So... the complaint is that the website itself is so poorly set out that people don't even realise what is expected of them?

And yet the whole point of this thread is discussing viewpoints on said charities. Namely, why the charities that address rescuing animals are getting more attention than ones that discuss world hunger.
Exactly. The sad part is that people are free to click on one or all of the Sites, yet seem to favour the Animal Site over the "human issue" sites.

So... the complaint is that the website itself is so poorly set out that people don't even realise what is expected of them?
I don't believe that that is the problem.

It appears that this:

http://cdn.thehungersite.com/charityusa_vitalstream_com/ctg/p3/ad/en/458x230mainrota_080707123000.jpg

is overwhelmed by this:

http://cdn.thehungersite.com/charityusa_vitalstream_com/ctg/p3/ad/en/458x193rescuest_090319145943.jpg

Why?

And yet the whole point of this thread is discussing viewpoints on said charities. Namely, why the charities that address rescuing animals are getting more attention than ones that discuss world hunger.
on one webpage (or series of webpages?)

it says nothing about the general attitude toward human vs animal charities.

on one webpage (or series of webpages?)

it says nothing about the general attitude toward human vs animal charities.

I could recite a few anecdotes, and try to find links to internet polls, but the anecdotes would be useless, and even if I could find the sites again, the amount voting was far too small to accurately represent all of the US, or of western civilization. Point is, I can't prove that more people care about saving animals than saving humans, but through my experiences, I have come to believe this.

And yet the whole point of this thread is discussing viewpoints on said charities. Namely, why the charities that address rescuing animals are getting more attention than ones that discuss world hunger.

One charity that addresses rescuing animals, and one charity that discusses world hunger.

It's nonsensical, anyway. The data is insufficient to make such a calculation based on because you have NO idea what other pursuits people clicking on one or more link are ALSO engaged in.

I might walk in, mail off a $1000 check to "Feed the Children", and then 'click the link' on the animal rescue page.

To what degree does page clicks on one site, represent... well, anything?

One charity that addresses rescuing animals, and one charity that discusses world hunger.

It's nonsensical, anyway. The data is insufficient to make such a calculation based on because you have NO idea what other pursuits people clicking on one or more link are ALSO engaged in.

I might walk in, mail off a $1000 check to "Feed the Children", and then 'click the link' on the animal rescue page.

To what degree does page clicks on one site, represent... well, anything?

Nothing, see my above post. I don't like retyping things.

Nothing, see my above post. I don't like retyping things.

Considering your entire 'above post' can be boiled down to "I can't prove a damn thing, but I think this is true", it's probably not worth retyping.

Considering your entire 'above post' can be boiled down to "I can't prove a damn thing, but I think this is true", it's probably not worth retyping.
*sigh* If you can prove to me that people care more about other humans than animals, go ahead. Otherwise, you're in the same boat as me. The only difference is that you're paddling in the opposite direction.

I don't believe that that is the problem.

I already addressed this response to a similar statement by another poster, but it applies here:


It's nonsensical, anyway. The data is insufficient to make such a calculation based on because you have NO idea what other pursuits people clicking on one or more link are ALSO engaged in.

I might walk in, mail off a $1000 check to "Feed the Children", and then 'click the link' on the animal rescue page.

To what degree does page clicks on one site, represent... well, anything?

*sigh* If you can prove to me that people care more about other humans than animals, go ahead. Otherwise, you're in the same boat as me. The only difference is that you're paddling in the opposite direction.

From the source provided in the OP, I have already shown that that site ITSELF counters your own 'argument'. By quite a substantial margin.

I might walk in, mail off a $1000 check to "Feed the Children", and then 'click the link' on the animal rescue page.

To what degree does page clicks on one site, represent... well, anything?
Yeah right. IF you were going to graciously donate $1000 to "Feed the Children", why wouldn't you also click to give FREE food to those that are starving?

I could recite a few anecdotes, and try to find links to internet polls, but the anecdotes would be useless, and even if I could find the sites again, the amount voting was far too small to accurately represent all of the US, or of western civilization. Point is, I can't prove that more people care about saving animals than saving humans, but through my experiences, I have come to believe this.
i dont think you are right about that but *shrug* i DO know that the OP is not good evidence of it.

From the source provided in the OP, I have already shown that that site ITSELF counters your own 'argument'. By quite a substantial margin.
I believe that your analysis is not proof that your assumption is correct.

From the source provided in the OP, I have already shown that that site ITSELF counters your own 'argument'. By quite a substantial margin.


To what degree does page clicks on one site, represent... well, anything?
How so? I've never claimed that this site has changed my opinion or anything, this link, just like any other, was something to start debating on. Tell me, when a school shooting thread is posted, do you go in and say 'OH my God, that's horrible! This link tells me everything I need to know, and that stricter/looser gun control is needed!"? Or do you say 'Damned bastards! Why haven't they tightened/loosened gun control yet!?!?' like the rest of us?
i dont think you are right about that but *shrug* i DO know that the OP is not good evidence of it.
Never said it was. It just was a starting point for a discussion.

Yeah right. IF you were going to graciously donate $1000 to "Feed the Children", why wouldn't you also click to give FREE food to those that are starving?
you have already been given 3 excellent reasons.

my own, which is that animal rescue may be everyone's second click

g'n'i excellent point that human charities received more than twice the number of clicks than the aminal charity

and holy cheese's idea that OCD is a big factor which i can believe more animal rights people are afflicted with. cant you just see a nice housebound PETA member sitting all day every day on the computer clicking "animal rescue"?

One website is a statistically insignificant in determining what people care about more. You could just as easily spend a week lurking 4chan and assume that the world is full of racist, sexist trolls called David.

Yeah right. IF you were going to graciously donate $1000 to "Feed the Children", why wouldn't you also click to give FREE food to those that are starving?

Why would I? I just sent food, didn't I?

I believe that your analysis is not proof that your assumption is correct.

My analysis?

I simply added up the number you presented. If there's something wrong with the data - that's your fault, not mine.

Simple arithmetic testifies that your assertion that 'people care more about animals than they do about people' is untrue. Using the data YOU presented.

My analysis?

I simply added up the number you presented. If there's something wrong with the data - that's your fault, not mine.

Simple arithmetic testifies that your assertion that 'people care more about animals than they do about people' is untrue. Using the data YOU presented.

But you, yourself, have concluded that the sampled site was inherently a bad source to base any opinion on.

How so? I've never claimed that this site has changed my opinion or anything, this link, just like any other, was something to start debating on. Tell me, when a school shooting thread is posted, do you go in and say 'OH my God, that's horrible! This link tells me everything I need to know, and that stricter/looser gun control is needed!"? Or do you say 'Damned bastards! Why haven't they tightened/loosened gun control yet!?!?' like the rest of us?


I'm sure this made sense in your head.

One website is a statistically insignificant in determining what people care about more. You could just as easily spend a week lurking 4chan and assume that the world is full of racist, sexist trolls called David.
I don't think that a web site that is getting hundreds of millions of clicks per year is "irrelevant", or as you say "statistically insignificant".

I'm sure this made sense in your head.

Actually, I'm pretty sure it still makes sense. This link was, just like for everything else on NSG, a starting point for a discussion, not world changing evidence. In fact, that's incredibly apparent in my quoted post.

But you, yourself, have concluded that the sampled site was inherently a bad source to base any opinion on.

Not 'bad' - just 'not enough'.

If I put up a survey online, asking who the hottest girl in the world is, and I get a grand total of 1000 responses for Salma Hayek - are we now agreed that Salma Hayek must be the hottest girl in the world?

Or - might we want a more cosmopolitan sampling before we start to attach too much weight to the results?


And the real problem is - carrying my analogy further - the survey DOESN'T say that Salam Hayek is the hottest, but we are (the OP is) pretending it does.

I don't think that a web site that is getting hundreds of millions of clicks per year is "irrelevant", or as you say "statistically insignificant".

Clearly, you've never studied statistics.

Actually, I'm pretty sure it still makes sense. This link was, just like for everything else on NSG, a starting point for a discussion, not world changing evidence. In fact, that's incredibly apparent in my quoted post.
ok

lets move on

do you think that animal charities are wrong?

Actually, I'm pretty sure it still makes sense. This link was, just like for everything else on NSG, a starting point for a discussion, not world changing evidence. In fact, that's incredibly apparent in my quoted post.

You think that school shootings and gun control are somehow relevant? Even as a parallel?

Perhaps you need to re-read your post.

You seem to be arguing that providing statistics IN the OP, that contradict the alleged point.. and then failing to provide any other evidence to support the original claim - is somehow to be commended? Or even indulged?

My analysis?

I simply added up the number you presented. If there's something wrong with the data - that's your fault, not mine.

Simple arithmetic testifies that your assertion that 'people care more about animals than they do about people' is untrue. Using the data YOU presented.
Your analysis is based on a single click per customer theory?

Your analysis is based on a single click per customer theory?

No, my analysis is based on the numbers on the page.

It doesn't matter if each customer clicks once, or clicks ten times.

Unless - you're trying to argue that people are coming to this site, clicking ONE button ten times, and every other button once.

Which.. seems like a bit of a stretch.

I don't think that a web site that is getting hundreds of millions of clicks per year is "irrelevant", or as you say "statistically insignificant".

Hundreds of millions of clicks probably amounts to ~300,000 people clicking every day. So with your data we could, maybe, determine the trend of ~300,000 people in choosing which charity to donate freely to. Hardly generalisable to humanity as a whole.

Hundreds of millions of clicks probably amounts to ~300,000 people clicking every day. So with your data we could, maybe, determine the trend of ~300,000 people in choosing which charity to donate freely to. Hardly generalisable to humanity as a whole.

Or even Americans, as a whole, even if they were all Americans - since it would account for maybe a tenth of a percent.

Hardly a great representative sample.

So - Animals get 112 million clicks, trees get 45 million clicks, and people 'only' get 250 million clicks.

I'm confused why the thread didn't just end at this post.

250,000,000 > 112,000,000 > 45,000,000

QED, right?

I'm confused why the thread didn't just end at this post.

250,000,000 > 112,000,000 > 45,000,000

QED, right?
Your maths cannot stop Some Guy On The Internet from channelling his Righteous Fury Over The State Of Society!

No, my analysis is based on the numbers on the page.

It doesn't matter if each customer clicks once, or clicks ten times.

Unless - you're trying to argue that people are coming to this site, clicking ONE button ten times, and every other button once.

Which.. seems like a bit of a stretch.
Did you look at the historical data?

Example:

2003 39,948,086 clicks for Animal Rescue
2003 49,211,445 clicks for Breast Cancer
2003 38,785,490 clicks for Hunger

2008 111,757,501 clicks for Animal Rescue +279% since 2003
2008 101,674,843 clicks for Breast Cancer +207% since 2003
2008 58,615,830 clicks for Hunger +151% since 2003

Do you see a trend?

I'm confused why the thread didn't just end at this post.

250,000,000 > 112,000,000 > 45,000,000

QED, right?
Because it doesn't accurately reflect the whole picture?

Hundreds of millions of clicks probably amounts to ~300,000 people clicking every day.
Your proof?

So with your data we could, maybe, determine the trend of ~300,000 people in choosing which charity to donate freely to. Hardly generalisable to humanity as a whole.
So like you are guessing?

Edit: when the Hunger Site was first set up in 1999, only one click per day was counted.

Did you look at the historical data?

Example:

2003 39,948,086 clicks for Animal Rescue
2003 49,211,445 clicks for Breast Cancer
2003 38,785,490 clicks for Hunger

2008 111,757,501 clicks for Animal Rescue +279% since 2003
2008 101,674,843 clicks for Breast Cancer +207% since 2003
2008 58,615,830 clicks for Hunger +151% since 2003

Do you see a trend?
do you think that giving to animal charities is wrong?

Your proof?

How about yours? Providing a website that tracks trends on 'click site charities' hardly counts as proof that humanity cares more about the well being of animals than other human beings.

EDIT: Scratch that. You only provided links to the Hunger Site itself, none to the numbers you've thrown around. You want to make an argument? Come back with evidence please.


So like you are guessing?

As are you.

Your proof?
A reasonable assumption about people's actions. Do you have something to suggest that each of those clicks represents a single person?


So like you are guessing?
I'm pointing out that you have insufficient data to conclude anything about what 'people' are doing. You're RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGING about a problem that you can't show to exist.

Edit: when the Hunger Site was first set up in 1999, only one click per day was counted.

And?

Because it doesn't accurately reflect the whole picture?

Neither does saying "omg people like animals more than humans cause they click more on a website", but that didn't stop you from spouting such nonsense as the Gospel, now did it?

I am astounded by the number of people who are taking offence to my raising of concerns relating to human issues versus animal issues.

Child Beater: A slap on the hand
Animal Beater: 10 years in jail

I am astounded by the number of people who are taking offence to my raising of concerns relating to human issues versus animal issues.
and im amazed that you are keeping on with your assumptions.

and that you seem to have a problem with animal charities.

I am astounded by the number of people who are taking offence to my raising of concerns relating to human issues versus animal issues.

We're not taking offence, we're pointing out that you're basing your concerns on nothing. If there were some kind of disparity in how people donate to animal welfare charities as opposed to human welfare charities then this would be a very different thread. As it is you've got numbers that prove nothing and unlimited frustration that we aren't agreeing with you, or even taking you seriously.

I am astounded by the number of people who are taking offence to my raising of concerns relating to human issues versus animal issues.

I am astounded just how magnificently you completely misunderstand everything that is being said to you.

Animals and humans are both very important. I fail to see an issue here.

Common Questions (http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive/faq.faces?siteId=1&link=ctg_ths_faq_from_home_footer#)

How often can I click on the "Click Here to Give - it's FREE" button? Can I just keep clicking and give thousands of cups of food at once?


Answer:
You can click once a day, every day of the year on The Hunger Site and on each of our other Click to Give™ sites. Our agreement with our sponsors allows us to count one click, per person, per calendar day. A monitoring system is set up to check this. While you could click on the button ten or a hundred or a thousand times, we will only count one click from you. In the meantime, our system could be slowed down, possibly overloaded, preventing other visitors' clicks from generating funding. Please note that we count clicks received through company firewalls, proxy servers, etc., to the best of our ability. We count every click as fairly and accurately as possible.
I think that re-affirms my earlier statement about only being able to click once a day.

Nobody ever doubted it.

Animals and humans are both very important. I fail to see an issue here.
From my perspective regarding the site in question, it would appear that people are putting more emphasis on animal welfare then on human welfare.

Common Questions (http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive/faq.faces?siteId=1&link=ctg_ths_faq_from_home_footer#)




Answer:

I think that re-affirms my earlier statement about only being able to click once a day.
so?

what is the point you want to make again?

has it changed any since the beginning of the thread?

From my perspective regarding the site in question, it would appear that people are putting more emphasis on animal welfare then on human welfare.
so? its one site. whats the big problem?

From my perspective regarding the site in question, it would appear that people are putting more emphasis on animal welfare then on human welfare.

It's just one site's data. Can you base your opinion on a wider data scope?

so? its one site. whats the big problem?
Your job as antagonist died on page one or two when I suggested that you find another thread.

Have a good night. :D

Your job as antagonist died on page one or two when I suggested that you find another thread.

Have a good night. :D
you should still be so lucky.

didnt the rest of the opposition convince you that im not some lone nut?

Your job as antagonist died on page one or two when I suggested that you find another thread.

Have a good night. :D

Actually, that's really not how NSG works.

Do you have any actual evidence to post to support your claim that people care more about animals than humans?

If there were some kind of disparity in how people donate to animal welfare charities as opposed to human welfare charities then this would be a very different thread.
There is some (http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/apr/23/charitablegiving.childprotection?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront) evidence of this.

Meh. People who complain about animal welfare arguing effort should be made for humans usually really don't care about people.

Clicking buttons and sending $25 once a year is not really doing much to solve world hunger.

If you want to help people, send money to Doctors without Borders. At least a majority of your money will go to the intended effort vs supporting the organization.

Death is inevitable for animals and humans alike. The importance either one is actually nil relative to the universe itself.


That may very well be the most cynical thing I've ever heard in my life. I congratulate you on this.

That may very well be the most cynical thing I've ever heard in my life. I congratulate you on this.

The universe doesn't care about opinions.

That may very well be the most cynical thing I've ever heard in my life. I congratulate you on this.

I'm sensing some sarcasm on part of the congratulations. It may very well be cynical, it also happens to be true. It is just the nature of things.

The universe doesn't care about opinions.

Exactly.

Meh. People who complain about animal welfare arguing effort should be made for humans usually really don't care about people.
Your opinion or do you have anything to back up your assertion?

Clicking buttons and sending $25 once a year is not really doing much to solve world hunger.
That so (http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive/aboutus.faces;jsessionid=C44140B6198DBD5DC1B62AD256346DD4.ctgProd02?siteId=1&link=ctg_ths_aboutus_from_home_leftnav)?

On average, over 220,000 individuals from around the world visit the site each day to click the yellow "Click Here to Give - it's FREE" button. To date, more that 200 million visitors have given more than 300 million cups of staple food. Its grassroots popularity has been recognized with Web awards in the activism category — the 2000 Cool Site of the Year Award and the People's Voice winner at the 2000 Webby Awards.
That is not including the $25 that you were talking about either, which would buy a lot of food in some countries.

GLOBAL INCOME PER CAPITA (http://www.finfacts.com/biz10/globalworldincomepercapita.htm)

If you want to help people, send money to Doctors without Borders. At least a majority of your money will go to the intended effort vs supporting the organization.
You can also help people by taking a few minutes of your time and clicking on the Hunger Site (http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=1). No cost to you.

Perhaps the OP and those railing about how people care more about animals than humans should check out the Forbes list of the 200 largest charities in the US. If they did, they would see that the first domestic animal charity dosen't show up on the list until #145. That is hardly preferential treatment. And the first wildlife/environment charity is listed at #23.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/14/Revenue_1.html

Perhaps that will put things in a little perspective. Clicks on an obscure internet site are meaningless. And they probably don't really do a damn thing for charity anyway. It just makes people feel better about themselves without actually having to do anything tangible to help others.

are apples more important then red apples? er well if it weren't for apples there kind of wouldn't be red apples. sort of basic boolian i should think.

The thing that really buggers me is the Literacy thingy being the least voted. People are dumb, and want other people to stay dumb.

I'm confused why the thread didn't just end at this post.

250,000,000 > 112,000,000 > 45,000,000

QED, right?

You'd have thought...

Did you look at the historical data?

Example:

2003 39,948,086 clicks for Animal Rescue
2003 49,211,445 clicks for Breast Cancer
2003 38,785,490 clicks for Hunger

2008 111,757,501 clicks for Animal Rescue +279% since 2003
2008 101,674,843 clicks for Breast Cancer +207% since 2003
2008 58,615,830 clicks for Hunger +151% since 2003

Do you see a trend?

Yes, a slightly less popular charity got slightly more popular... while some slightly MORE popular ones ALSO got more popular.

Because it doesn't accurately reflect the whole picture?

Now, I KNOW you're shitting me.

You present ONE site, with maybe a few hundred thousand sucscribers, that relies entirely on clicking links as a measure - and THEN talk about other people not reflecting the whole picture?

I am astounded by the number of people who are taking offence to my raising of concerns relating to human issues versus animal issues.

People are 'taking offence' to poor technique.

If you said "Christians are evil..." and used a site about the WBC as your sole source, you'd get similarly lambasted.

Child Beater: A slap on the hand
Animal Beater: 10 years in jail

Egg Beater: Priceless

There is some (http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/apr/23/charitablegiving.childprotection?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront) evidence of this.
Oh Britain. *facepalm*
The universe doesn't care about opinions.
The universe doesn't care what you say it doesn't care about.
Egg Beater: Priceless

Win.

Oh Britain. *facepalm*

The universe doesn't care what you say it doesn't care about.


Win.

*bows*

Despite all the negative reaction to my opening post, people can visit a web site and can help their fellow human beings by clicking on the following web sites:

The Hunger Site (http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=1)

The Breast Cancer Site (http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive/home.faces;jsessionid=E3F8ECC88DED8A92ED6BF948C46EF17D.ctgProd02?siteId=2&link=ctg_bcs_home_from_ths_home_sitenav)

The Child Health Site (http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=5&link=ctg_chs_home_from_bcs_home_sitenav)

The Literacy Site (http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=6&link=ctg_lit_home_from_chs_home_sitenav)

The Rainforest Site (http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=4&link=ctg_trs_home_from_lit_home_sitenav)

And if you want to help animals, you can click on this site:

Animal Rescue (http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=3&link=ctg_ars_home_from_trs_home_sitenav)

It is FREE and it is painless. Scroll through the tabs at the top and you can click once daily on all the sites.

Despite all the negative reaction to my opening post, people can visit a web site and can help their fellow human beings by clicking on the following web sites:

The Hunger Site (http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=1)

The Breast Cancer Site (http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive/home.faces;jsessionid=E3F8ECC88DED8A92ED6BF948C46EF17D.ctgProd02?siteId=2&link=ctg_bcs_home_from_ths_home_sitenav)

The Child Health Site (http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=5&link=ctg_chs_home_from_bcs_home_sitenav)

The Literacy Site (http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=6&link=ctg_lit_home_from_chs_home_sitenav)

The Rainforest Site (http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=4&link=ctg_trs_home_from_lit_home_sitenav)

And if you want to help animals, you can click on this site:

Animal Rescue (http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=3&link=ctg_ars_home_from_trs_home_sitenav)

It is FREE and it is painless. Scroll through the tabs at the top and you can click once daily on all the sites.

I will never, ever, click on any of those links.

Maybe I'm killing the message, because of the messenger, but you've effectively evangelised me AGAINST wanting to give to ANY charity you feel you act as an agent for.

Despite all the negative reaction to my opening post, people can visit a web site and can help their fellow human beings by clicking on the following web sites:

The Hunger Site (http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=1)

The Breast Cancer Site (http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive/home.faces;jsessionid=E3F8ECC88DED8A92ED6BF948C46EF17D.ctgProd02?siteId=2&link=ctg_bcs_home_from_ths_home_sitenav)

The Child Health Site (http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=5&link=ctg_chs_home_from_bcs_home_sitenav)

The Literacy Site (http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=6&link=ctg_lit_home_from_chs_home_sitenav)

The Rainforest Site (http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=4&link=ctg_trs_home_from_lit_home_sitenav)

And if you want to help animals, you can click on this site:

Animal Rescue (http://www.thehungersite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=3&link=ctg_ars_home_from_trs_home_sitenav)

It is FREE and it is painless. Scroll through the tabs at the top and you can click once daily on all the sites.
no thank you.

Humans are in no risk of extinction. We should value human life relative to the biosphere which sustains us. Biodiversity is threatened, and, with it, the stability of the whole world. If I had a choice between saving a cheetah and a human being, I would pick the cheetah.

I will never, ever, click on any of those links.

Maybe I'm killing the message, because of the messenger, but you've effectively evangelised me AGAINST wanting to give to ANY charity you feel you act as an agent for.

no thank you.
Giants would rise to the occaision and not let their ego block them from doing the right thing. :D

Giants would rise to the occaision and not let their ego block them from doing the right thing. :D

Giants are also a mythical metaphor, and have no real application to actual existence.

You've poisoned the well, I'm afraid. Your antagonistic, hysterical and obstructive (not to - mention factually weak, and ultimately illogical) opening gambit has lost you a potential pool of support.

I'd meditate on that, if I were you.

Giants are also a mythical metaphor, and have no real application to actual existence.

You've poisoned the well, I'm afraid. Your antagonistic, hysterical and obstructive (not to - mention factually weak, and ultimately illogical) opening gambit has lost you a potential pool of support.

I'd meditate on that, if I were you.
There is nothing here for me to meditate on. As I said before, there are those that will do the right thing to help their fellow human beings, regardless of the situation, and there are those that will make excuses, and try to blame others for their shortcomings. It appears that your resentment will provide you with the perfect excuse for doing the latter. It is too bad that you feel that way, but I can accept that.

There is nothing here for me to meditate on. As I said before, there are those that will do the right thing to help their fellow human beings, regardless of the situation, and there are those that will make excuses, and try to blame others for their shortcomings. It appears that your resentment will provide you with the perfect excuse for doing the latter. It is too bad that you feel that way, but I can accept that.

If you were truly able to accept that, you wouldn't have posted a reply. Instead, you felt compelled to post to demonstrate how much more magnaminous you are than the rest of us, proving that you're not interested in truly helping fellow human beings for its own sake, but instead for the morally superior feeling and ability to lord it over other people that it gives you.

no thank you.


Indeed. These click to save sites seem to pop up more and more each day. A friend showed me a trivia site where youi click, answer a question and give food to cats and dogs.

I wonder how much they really help. I wonder if their books are available for scrutiny.....

If you were truly able to accept that, you wouldn't have posted a reply. Instead, you felt compelled to post to demonstrate how much more magnaminous you are than the rest of us, proving that you're not interested in truly helping fellow human beings for its own sake, but instead for the morally superior feeling and ability to lord it over other people that it gives you.
One might accuse you of exactly the same thing you are accusing me of?

The fact is that I am trying to raise awareness and there is no cost to follow up that awareness. If people want to attacl my integrity for whatever reason, that is up to them but I do believe in regards to this thread it is a rather frivolous excercise and entirely unnecessary.

Simple choice....support or reject?

One might accuse you of exactly the same thing you are accusing me of?

The fact is that I am trying to raise awareness and there is no cost to follow up that awareness. If people want to attacl my integrity for whatever reason, that is up to them but I do believe in regards to this thread it is a rather frivolous excercise and entirely unnecessary.

Simple choice....support or reject?

No, one might not, because I've made no attempt to claim moral superiority in this thread based on where I click my mouse.

The fact is that I am trying to raise awareness and there is no cost to follow up that awareness.

If that were the case, having an opening gambit consisting of making poorly based claims that fail in light of even the simplest examination, and turning the debate into an attack on either people who like animals, or people who DON'T click on enough websites (it's a little murky what the point was supposed to be)... probably a really bad way of achieving your goal.

Instead, what you did was to take some people that might be receptive to your message, and turn them off.

There must be something wrong with my thinking then according to OP. People are overpopulated, endangered animals are much more valuable because they are underpopulated. Also, a person can run to the police if he is mistreated, animals cannot.

There must be something wrong with my thinking then according to OP. People are overpopulated, endangered animals are much more valuable because they are underpopulated. Also, a person can run to the police if he is mistreated, animals cannot.

Oh, SURE, if you're going to use LOGIC, and examine FACTS.

Of COURSE it sounds silly, when you say it like THAT.

I just want to remind everyone...

http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/fail-owned-meat-origin-fail.jpg?w=500&h=266

I just want to remind everyone...

http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/fail-owned-meat-origin-fail.jpg?w=500&h=266

Looks fake. Shame.