Stars donating money to catch someone who drowned a dog.

According the news at Yahoo!, stars are donating money for information leading to the arrest of someone who strangled and drowned a dog.

But, of course!

Illiteracy is no more. Poverty has been eradicated. Starvation torments no one anymore. The AIDS crisis in Africa is under control. People the Middle East have stopped killing each other. Healthcare is accessible to everyone throughout the world. Women are no longer victims of domestic abuse. Teenagers don’t feel like taking their lives anymore. In short, it is nice to know the world is at such a state that stars feel it is now not a waste to throw their money to arrest someone who drowned a dog.


There are so many better ways to spend money.

WRS - The world has a destination, and it’s vehicle is a handbasket.

It’s possible they donate to those causes as well.

pssst Sauron, can we have a word in private?

peers left and right

OK, I get your point about the money being spent and I somewhat agree. Human life is more important to humans than animals. Given the choice of my wife or my dogs in a burning building, I’m getting my wife out first.

But you’re treading on thin ice with this one. See, dogs are cute and have great emotional pull with people. (unless it’s the blue plate special) Take it from someone who’s been thoroughly smacked down in other threads when views were stated wrong or too inflammatory.I don’t know if my advice carries any weight, but always keep in mind not every living thing can be saved. You just do your best to prevent it from happening. And prevent it from as many as you can.

OK, now go to the other side of the room so nobody sees us. You may not want to be associated with me :wink:

Oh, hi Dopers! I was just explaining to Sauron how to correct the timing on a Harley. Nothing to see here. Carry on. :smiley:

It’s their money. They can donate wherever they like.

People donate for rewards all the time. You gotta admit, whoever did the dog is a sick fuck and we’d all be better off if he/she did a serious stretch in jail.

Considering I find myself agreeing with you more and more over that past couple months, you may as well recommend a model of Birckenstocks and a reliable “masking” agent. :eek:

Well, they have been told repeatedly that meddling in these affairs is bed, bad, bad. Can they not have a bone, so to speak?

OP on target, methinks.

Oh please.

You do what you can, about whatever is in front of you.

If someone asked for a donation for such a thing, and you had money to spare, would you REALLY take that request as opportunity to explore ALL of your life’s priorities? Or would just ask yourself, yes or no, is this cause worth supporting or not? Anyone who thinks, “Well, is this really the #1 priority, out of all my priorities, in the entire world?” has a serious god complex.

Yes: everyone should choose ONE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE and give only–ONLY!–to support that single issue. Even if you have money leaking out your pores.

Maybe the choice these donors made, WeRStupid and Asscheeks, was between giving this money to find a psycho animal torturer and buying a couple hundred-dollar cigars.

Now, do you think they made the right choice or the wrong choice?

Good for them. Even if you aren’t particularly a pet person (I’m not myself), some of those animal killers work their way up to people killers.

I thought Richard Pryor was dead.

You know, I think that everyone who spent money on tickets to Matthew Perry’s movies started this whole chain of wasteful spending and the blame should be placed on them.

I don’t really see why this bothers you. A couple hundred bucks isn’t going to cure the AIDS problem in Africa, or something as huge as illiteracy. Just because the problem at hand is not the biggest and most important, doesn’t mean it’s not a problem. If people only tried to fix the largest of problems - which are usually the most unfixable - then nothing would ever get done.

I’m reminded of a quote. Excuse me for paraphrasing and not remembering who said it.

“Between the simple things I won’t do, and the great things I cannot do, the danger is that I’ll do nothing at all”

If you only spent your money on things too large for you to effect, and refused to use it for little things, you’ll never get anything done. And thatwould truly be wasting your money.

Most of the problems you mentioned are far more complex than simply throwing money at them. I mean, do you really think that domestic violence would not exist if we just built more shelters? We’ve already thrown $220B into Iraq and it sure doesn’t look like it’s doing anything for world peace. Most of the world’s problems has more to do with politics than money. Thus we are pretty much powerless to solve them.

Meanwhile, there’s an asshole on the loose who brutally killed an innocent being. There’s a real possiblity that the criminal will be caught. Sometimes it’s nice to contribute to a cause that is simple and actually fixable.

WeRSauron, you sure you’re not channeling Sisyphus’ Stone, there?

Anyway, to be serious… Yes, I do hope that these celebrities’ concern for animals does not exceed their concern for humans, but I wouldn’t call money spent tracking down whoever did this a waste, necessarily. As others have mentioned, whoever did this may not stop with animals. Getting this person a criminal record NOW and getting some prints on file may save a few lives later, who knows?

Can you imagine what would happen if these stars did not contribute to this?

We’d soon have a thread here titled:

Heartless millionaire movie stars refuse to contribute to fund to catch person who strangled & drowned a dog!!! Like the saying goes, ‘Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.’
P.S. How can a person both strangle and drown a dog? Wouldn’t either one of them on their own be sufficiently fatal?

Somehow this starts my BS meter to tingle just a little bit.

Yeah, it was either choked and drowned or strangled and submerged. But who bothers to pick nits off a dead dog?

At least it wasn’t strangled, drowned, and electrocuted.

And at least it didn’t burn down, fall over, and then sink into a swamp.

Spend money on an extremely complex cause, with no idea whether that money will be of any use in the long term, and no confidence of a positive end. Or spend it on a simpler issue, close to home, which will bring immediate gratification.

Yet, if the people had caught a fish and left it on the shore to drown in air, no one would bat an eye. 'Cause puppies are cute.

Yeah, cute… and fairly intelligent mammals. Whereas fish… practically brainless. Get over it. Cuteness is not the primary factor here.

You’re bitching about celebrities?

A couple of years ago the area around Roseau, MN, went through some severe flooding. Hundreds of people were temporarily homeless, yet there were more people up there assisting the pets and livestock than there were assisting the people. There are people who sleep in their cars in the parking lots of earthquake evacuation shelters because pets aren’t allowed. The state of Minnesota spent tens of thousands of dollars to come up with a way to decontaminate pets along with people for nuclear meltdown drills.

You think it’s all about celebrities? Dude, that’s just the way life is in the good ol’ USA.