Только что отписалась от одного весьма популярного"городского паблика"...

I just unsubscribed from one very popular "city public" after the appearance of a link there to an article promoting the murders. The topic of responsible treatment of animals and the adoption of a law on such issues, which has become especially acute in connection with the latest events, has become acute. Let me make a short summary for those who are not very involved in the issue, but often see flickering links \ videos \ articles and reflect on what he thinks about it himself. Conventionally, there are 3 main positions. The first - the open opponents of all forms of life, except the human one - we will call them zoofascists. The term is controversial, but quite well from the point of view of speech concepts describes the phenomenon: people who believe that no other kind of biological creatures, except themselves, has a right to exist, unless it can be used directly: for food, for skins, for the experiments — in short, how Nazi Germany treats Jews — can work in a concentration camp, and cannot work in a furnace. Also, this part of the population is often actively involved in direct killings (dog, cat, krau, etc. hunters, flayer, like Khabarovsk girls, etc.). It doesn’t matter whether the given animal is bothering them or not, what it matters to other people — zoofascists can travel a hundred kilometers to kill a dog that they themselves never crossed in their life, even if this dog walks with the owner on a leash in its own yard . The second group of those who are discussing themselves is called "Zoorealists." These are those who believe that only those creatures that are convenient to humans have the right to life. That is, they are ready to recognize the right to the existence of purebred domestic dogs, show cats, pedigree horses - as long as they do not interfere personally with them, and also especially if these animals can bring them direct or indirect income. These are the supporters of "humane euthanasia" - as soon as the animal got sick, it became inconvenient to behave, just tired, it must be destroyed. Also, the concept of “Zoorealists” involves the destruction of all animals on the streets, because there they also “interfere with people”: they cross the road and can get under the car, causing damage to the car and moral suffering for the driver and what the corpse sees later, give birth to kittens that climb into radiators, leave excrement and carry fleas. And in general they afflict with their unhappy appearance, obviously - they suffer. And therefore, also subject to destruction, so as not to interfere with people morally and financially. And finally, the last, third group of people engaged in discussions on animals is the so-called Zoogumanists. Which believe that animals with humans have equal rights to exist within planet Earth, and if humanity has refused the death penalty for vagrancy in relation to representatives of its species, sooner or later we will reach the point of expanding the recognition of the right to life from one species to , for example, families. Obviously, the optimism of this part of the population is inspired by a knowledge of history, which remembers that several centuries ago it was proposed to hang up cripples and vagabonds so that they would not insult their gaze with their vile appearance. True, the process is being dragged out on our concrete basis: if in the “damned west” it has long been considered bad form to discriminate on social, racial or physical grounds, then, as we know, people with disabilities are ostracized by the “wide public masses” . But gradually the situation is changing: fewer people will squeamishly pick up a coat while walking past a child with cerebral palsy, more and more people stop looking like crazy, at volunteers in orphanages and shelters, and at least there’s an offer to burn the awkward silence at the table all homeless people. " And yes, I consider this a sign of evolutionary progress. And I - for him. This is probably something in the genes. Something that once made my distant ancestors in a warm and shallow pond start a risky and uncomfortable division process. There were no guarantees, and there were other opinions around: they say our level of being is enough to preserve what you have. The more you grow, the more you need to interact - and everything is so dangerous: dirty, biting, flea-like - and in general, not like us. And okay, if what good is it for us: to stroke the pseudopodia there, or to fill the vacuoles. And if not - in a thermonuclear furnace would be all that we and we do not like. In general, friends, everyone decides which wolf to feed him. I think that if you stop hanging vagabonds and burn red-haired women, humanity has learned to use electricity and fly a little into space, there is a chance that if we stop poisoning dogs and choking cats, we can do something else interesting.