My wife and I own two dogs. One’s a golden retriever. The other’s a golden doodle. I like these critters a lot. They add much to our family. Jogging companions. Pseudo-watchdogs. Always glad to see us!
Still, I’m a people-person first—a trait I happen to believe most of us share. But I’ve noticed (and maybe you have too) that more and more individuals and animal rights groups are just getting downright silly when it comes to the lengths they’ll go on behalf of non-human organisms. For instance, I recently read about a Florida graduate student who was pressured to abandon her research involving fruit flies because a group believed she was harming these insects!
Focus on the Family’s president, Jim Daly recently ran a blog titled “Are We Obsessed with Our Pets?” that mentions several other crazy extremes animal lovers will go. Jim also mentions a World Magazine article in which the author talks of a veterinarian who likes to ask people if, given the choice between saving the life of a stranger in a burning building or their beloved pet, which one would they save? “You’d be surprised,” he said, “how many would save their pet.”
This got me to thinking about a different, yet somewhat similar animal vs. human dilemma presented in a letter Plugged In recently received. Carolyn P writes:
Just a quick point I wanted to make as I read [Plugged In’s] review on Saw today, because my daughter’s friend says that it’s his favorite movie (kind of scary, right?) If those atrocities on the screen were committed against cats and dogs instead of people, there would have been an overwhelming public outcry about the unacceptable display of cruelty to animals, amid valid concerns that it could increase atrocities against animals in the real world. The ASPCA and other similar organizations would quickly see to it that it was banned from theatres. Where is the outcry against this display of unspeakable cruelty to humans? Are we less valuable than animals?
I think Carolyn makes a great point. If Hollywood made Saw, the dog and cat version, I do think People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the like would scream and holler. Sure, they’d all know, according the line in the movie credits, that “No animals were harmed in the making of this motion picture.” But they would worry about copycats. And they’d rightly worry that some people would begin to be desensitized toward animal cruelty and be more apt to give a shrug of the shoulders if they found out someone they knew was doing similar things to their pet…or a neighbor’s pet.
When it comes to the debate over whether or not violence in entertainment contributes to actual violence, that argument was settled almost 13 years ago. It was in the year 2000 that the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry issued a joint statement that declared:
[Media violence’s] effects are measurable and long lasting. Moreover, prolonged viewing of media violence can lead to emotional desensitization toward violence in real life. … Viewing entertainment violence can lead to increases in aggressive attitudes, values and behaviors in children.
Let me ask you. Which would be easier for you to watch: A movie that featured a dog being punched, kicked, and tortured, or a movie in which that happens to a human being? Then answer this (honestly): Do you feel that in your own life that “media violence [has led] to emotional desensitization toward violence in real life” as stated above?
Recent Comments