Opt to adopt!

[avia]

I just remembered I have these blank stickers for activism stuffs... so I used a few....


(Click to see large)

I think, I'm going on a tour of some local pet stores soon.

Comments

[feralkiss]

It's not about absolutely saying that animals are people, but at least not putting them in light that makes them seem so diminished. I really, really find it hard to get the message that "animals are worty of respect because they're like human children". It took me that you wrote it that way here for me to feel less unsure about the meaning. When I read the post-its, it reads the opposite as what you tell me. :/ That at most they're as intelligent as little kids, which also means that they don't get the bigger picture of what's going on either, and so that abusing them isn't too terrible actually. I don't think it takes to be an animal activist to get the message the way I got it.

[avia]

Hmm, I'm not really sure that I understand that? It's not okay to abuse children, and, most humans will think that children are very precious, special, etc., so, if you compare animals to children, most humans will feel more like they deserve respect... because, sadly, most humans think that human children are much more important than animals.

I think, for humans, they see that a child who is three years old can begin to talk, starts to understand the world, says "no" when it hurts... so, they understand that a person like that can feel pain and understand the world and be frightened and sad and lonely. I think, most people don't think it's okay to abuse a person like that... I hope?

[feralkiss]

"so, if you compare animals to children, most humans will feel more like they deserve respect"

That's not necessarily the case. Most people, while finding children "adorable", also unconsciously think of them as incomplete individuals because they're that, children, not adult. It's just the way society are; considering children as actual human beings is still extremely new actually, Children's Rights are pretty recent in the course of history.

Still nowadays, children are thought of as dependable, self-centered, not having a clue about the bigger picture, and so many other traits that enable paternalist and condescending attitudes toward them which justify the way children are currently treated in society. It's not called a "minor" status for no reasons, and it's not accidental either that women have fought against this "minor" status themselves in "women's rights" in the past (such as the right to decide for themselves of their future, instead of being dependable from either a father or a husband); prior to that, women were thought as being "eternal minors", that is, children forever. Which comes will less rights, as well as a deshumanized status. And of course women are more easily abused in society as well because of that, in comparison with men.

(Additionally you're also taking for granted that people will feel empathy towards children, which isn't the case for a lot of people (I'm not generalizing about child-free individuals either, because they're not necessarily like that, but a part of this population do not find children "special", "precious" and so on, even though they do deserve respect).

These are the reasons I find using the "animals = children" argumentation tricky; IMHO it comes with too many downsides so it ends up counter-productive to use.

[avia]

It's very new, but, it's also very strong. Right now, if anyone wants to do anything politically, they just have to say, "think of the children!" and people feel uncomfortable to reject it. The thought of "children" can get people to make a law, that they normally will ignore.

Also, the people who push this most strongly, and mostly feel "precious" about children, seems to be more conservative people who support "the family" but think animals are just meat/hunting/etc. so, to connect animals with children, is trying to get support from that audience, when the more liberal people, probably already care about animals in their own ways....

I definitely agree with everything you're saying, I don't like to "humanise" animals also, but, if people don't think an animal is worth anything on its own, then, I'm not sure what other to do than to try to get them to see the part that is "like humans". Except for changing their mind about thinking other animals are not worth anything, which is harder to do, takes longer, etc. and, the birds suffer for longer while you are trying to make that point....

I definitely agree that the "minor" status is a horrible problem though, and, everything you're saying about that and women's rights. It's a horrible attitude, and, I'm definitely happy to see someone else here who has a strong anti-ageist/youth rights perspective because, I don't see it very often. People assume, "of course we need to protect children!" and laugh at the thought that a child can make their own decisions or know what they want in life....

[feralkiss]

Well, as someone in the sociology field, I personally wouldn't go as far as making such assumptions. I think it's hard to comprehend how truely "strong" or "weak" people's feelings on a specific issue are; we only view the most vocal, or the feelings of the class we are exposed to the most, etc. We can sense certain patterns, but sometimes this is really tricky and we totally miss the bigger picture.

That actually applies to most social/societal commentaries. There is this historical example where it was assumed that eating potatoes was unhealthy because the people eating them were more prone to illness and other health issues; when in fact it was later found that the common denominator between "people who eat potatoes" and "people who have more health issues" was that both population were poor; potatoes were cheaper, and poor people don't have the income to access health services as much, it wasn't the food itself the problem and it wasn't indicative of the health status directly, only a possible (but not reliable either) indicator of a socio-economical status.

It's as much a fallacy to believe that liberal people necessarily care more about animals - it might be true to some extent, but it also may not be the case. And liberal people do not care *less* about their children, it's more likely that they just don't push the societal issues (or not the same issues) because they know X issue isn't a threat to their children (such as, gay rights). So the logic of "connecting animals with children to appeal to the conservative more because they feel most precious about children" is fallacious as well.

Here in France, which is a strongly agnostic/atheist country in comparison with the USA, you may think people would be more supportive of, say, gay rights, because they're less conservative overall, but that's not the case. People just find different reasons (such as "science", as in "it's not natural") to condemn something. Likewise, it's not because people do not hunt that they treat their pets better or "pruchase" them more ethically.

I do like your other post-its and I think they work more effectively and are not ambiguous! You're doing a great job, I just wanted to help about this specific issue, the "animals = children" ones may very well not be understood, or be totally misunderstood, by a part of the population you're trying to reach. :(