Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Man in Japan robs pet stores

Why is it that the minute there's an animal mentioned, that the person involved usually becomes an 'animal lover' no matter how crazy their behaviour? This is a person who used stolen cash to buy a dog - and then supported his 'habit' by robbing pet stores. It sounds more like he has issues - and less to do with the fact that he 'loves' animals.

Say you had a person who liked children so much that they decided to go out and say kidnap a few. Would that person described as someone who loves children? Chances are that person would be locked up. When it comes to animals however, any behaviour is explained because the person is an 'animal lover'. It seems that there is a bias that if you like animals then you're probably not too sane to begin with. Tell that to the 71.1 million households that have animals living with them in the US alone - I don't know of an equivalent study in Singapore.

9 comments:

calsifer said...

"Say you had a person who liked children so much that they decided to go out and say kidnap a few. Would that person described as someone who loves children?" Yes, I believe they're called pedophiles.

mr giggles said...

ermmm.... looks like the new profile of robbers and thieves will now include "animal lover" as one on its list of possible descriptions.

It's just the way the govt here works. Civet cats caused SARS ah? Kill the cats lor.

Cats are "nomadic" by nature so simply cannot be kept indoors, so not allowed in HDB flats in order to "preserve a harmonious living"...

So much crap... which incidentally, they'll also blame on the cats.

Dawn said...

Exactly calsifer.

mr giggles - I think that this may have been used in the original article. The source quoted was AFP.

I CAN understand someone being so desperate that they might rob a pet store to feed their pets. I know of a man here who stole cat food because he couldn't afford to feed community cats and a caregiver had to help pay the store off. However the article mentions that he stole money to buy at least one of the dogs. That to me doesn't indicate 'animal lover'. If you knew you couldn't afford to maintain an animal, would you really take one in, in the best interests of the animal?

Anonymous said...

If you divide the total no of cats owned in the US by the no of households that own a pet - it would be approx 2.3 cats per household. I am sure it does not work out neatly that way but it would suggest most households (that own cats) would have at least 2 cats.

Wonder what is our national average (though a %age of our cats may be community cats) & i think people who read this blog would probably have way too many ; )

So better not ask you ; p

eslina said...

There's definitely a bias attitude towards animal lovers or people who simply have compassion towards animals.

Apparently some people thinks that animal lovers means people who loves animals more than humans.

Here's another VERY myopic view of animal lovers I read recently -
http://www.npr.org/blogs/visibleman
/2007/10/whyi_i_hate_animal_lovers
.html

So sad that a so-called "intelligent" person can't be compassionate to all living beings but have to choose between "beings who walk upright, have opposable thumbs and can one-click their music over iTunes" and "those who drink from toilets???"

Dawn said...

Interesting point eslina - and it also makes me wonder exactly why some people are so insecure that they think that someone who loves animals will dislike people.

Here's another way of looking at it - maybe we should be looking at it in terms of compassion rather than human versus animal.

The other day at the supermarket I was standing in line when a little girl ran up and literally used her elbows to barrel me out of the way. To be fair, I don't know if she's good with animals, but as I watched her run by with not a word of apology, I went back to the friend I was with and both of us agreed that she must have been taught to behave that way by her parents. It's a Me-First attitude and somehow I do think that children who are brought up with animals are much LESS likely to exhibit behaviour like this.

No one would think twice if you put a family member before a stranger - but it's assumed you're out of your mind if you happen to think more highly of your cat or dog than a stranger. Chances are I DO like my cat more than a person I don't know because I have a relationship with my cat, whereas a stranger is someone I don't yet know. It doesn't however mean that if the stranger was in need that I wouldn't try my best to help.

eslina said...

To me it's a matter of extremes. Being extreme in anything can put people off balance and lose perspective. And when one is biased, it's pretty obvious how unreasonable the argument can get. In fact it can even seem arrogant.

I get put off when I read about people who buy exorbitantly expensive designer goods for their pets or send them to expensive hotels or spas. I know it's their prerogative but I think they kind of lose their priority in that pets needs our attention and love more than any-THING. I feel that people who does this do it more for themselves or status symbol rather than a love for animals/pets. That to me is going to extremes.

The writer in the article I mentioned should know that there are extreme animal welfare groups or individuals out there but he should not generalize them as animal lovers or confuse them with compassion towards animals.

With the 2 cases of Micheal Vick's and Adam "Pacman" Jones's media attention or criminal charges - my question is who is he putting the blame on? The animal lovers who didn't make the sentence but the judges? OR the victimized animals ??

He then proceed with "Maybe people are making a bigger deal out of Vick because Vick's more famous than Jones. But Jones' victims were more human than Vick's." So how logical is the fame of the convicted is blamed on the animal lovers or the animals??

He's saying that we humans should get angry only if another human is victimized and should not get all worked up if an animal is victimized. In other words we should have less compassion and empathy towards animals. How sad is that? To think that the world needs less compassion and empathy rather than more???

He clearly defines animal lovers as people who values animals over humans. He kept saying he likes animals but I guess for him compassion or love should only be reserved to humans...

Happy Moggy said...

You hit the nail on the head eslina. It is a matter of extremes, and the people who hate cat lovers in particular (we get a worse press than dog lovers) think we are all lab-burning, scientist-stabbing nutters.

You also touched on the expensive items and experiences available for pets and how you find them slightly distasteful because the owners are doing it for themselves, not really the pet.

I'll give you an example of owners who have spent for the sake of their pets, and whose behaviour was in my view even more distasteful.

A couple I know went on holiday and left the kids and the dogs with relatives. When they came back, the kids greeted them excitedly in anticipation of exotic gifts from afar.

In what I think bordered on cruelty, they pulled out presents for the dogs and told the kids that they get enough at Christmas and birthdays.

So you are right, there are all sorts of people who for one reason or another give animal lovers a bad name.

Dawn said...

I couldn't have said it better Eslina :)

And yes Eslina and Happy Moggy, there are always a minority who will give any group a bad name.