A question to you dads and mothers:
0
I had an interesting thought this morning, and I'd like to hear your opinions on this.
I've seen dozens of parents who have taught their children that animals that die go to a 'heaven' of some sort, or something pleasant on the mind. I however think that this is counter-productive. In fact, I think that the only thing that deserves tears should involve human interaction. Sure, I can see the point of teaching children emotional distress in a minor or simpler way could be beneficial. In the long run however, I think this is the wrong way to go about this. I know that you can raise an animal in the right way, yet not have an emotional attachment to it. Farmers do this all the time. People end up doing the extreme, and it can end up being for worse.
An anecdote for you: My aunt(and ironically one of the most sadistic and resentful people I've met), had a fond connection with her dog. I'd say it was the best she ever had. One day, it had finally had its life come to an end. She had given a response of emotional grief. Sure, that's common. What wasn't normal was the magnitude of it. She grieved more than she did for any person, and on top of that, she grieved for the canine for a full year. Even now, if you speak of the already eroded remains, she becomes teary-eyed and aggravated.
This made me furious with this woman. Human lives are taken in some of the worst ways imaginable, on a daily basis. Yet, she mourns for another species that probably doesn't even have a super-ego(look the word up if you don't understand).
But am I wrong on this? Would teaching a child that [if an animal dies, life goes on without much regard to its well-being] be so bad? I want your take.
I've seen dozens of parents who have taught their children that animals that die go to a 'heaven' of some sort, or something pleasant on the mind. I however think that this is counter-productive. In fact, I think that the only thing that deserves tears should involve human interaction. Sure, I can see the point of teaching children emotional distress in a minor or simpler way could be beneficial. In the long run however, I think this is the wrong way to go about this. I know that you can raise an animal in the right way, yet not have an emotional attachment to it. Farmers do this all the time. People end up doing the extreme, and it can end up being for worse.
An anecdote for you: My aunt(and ironically one of the most sadistic and resentful people I've met), had a fond connection with her dog. I'd say it was the best she ever had. One day, it had finally had its life come to an end. She had given a response of emotional grief. Sure, that's common. What wasn't normal was the magnitude of it. She grieved more than she did for any person, and on top of that, she grieved for the canine for a full year. Even now, if you speak of the already eroded remains, she becomes teary-eyed and aggravated.
This made me furious with this woman. Human lives are taken in some of the worst ways imaginable, on a daily basis. Yet, she mourns for another species that probably doesn't even have a super-ego(look the word up if you don't understand).
But am I wrong on this? Would teaching a child that [if an animal dies, life goes on without much regard to its well-being] be so bad? I want your take.
0
You arent sad because A life is lost, you are sad because an important part of your life is gone never to come back. Doesnt matter what it is hell it could even be material. If a child is sad because he lost something you don't go saying he shouldnt be because its something unimportant.
0
Kitsune_no_Suki wrote...
I had an interesting thought this morning, and I'd like to hear your opinions on this.I've seen dozens of parents who have taught their children that animals that die go to a 'heaven' of some sort, or something pleasant on the mind. I however think that this is counter-productive. In fact, I think that the only thing that deserves tears should involve human interaction. Sure, I can see the point of teaching children emotional distress in a minor or simpler way could be beneficial. In the long run however, I think this is the wrong way to go about this. I know that you can raise an animal in the right way, yet not have an emotional attachment to it. Farmers do this all the time. People end up doing the extreme, and it can end up being for worse.
An anecdote for you: My aunt(and ironically one of the most sadistic and resentful people I've met), had a fond connection with her dog. I'd say it was the best she ever had. One day, it had finally had its life come to an end. She had given a response of emotional grief. Sure, that's common. What wasn't normal was the magnitude of it. She grieved more than she did for any person, and on top of that, she grieved for the canine for a full year. Even now, if you speak of the already eroded remains, she becomes teary-eyed and aggravated.
This made me furious with this woman. Human lives are taken in some of the worst ways imaginable, on a daily basis. Yet, she mourns for another species that probably doesn't even have a super-ego(look the word up if you don't understand).
But am I wrong on this? Would teaching a child that [if an animal dies, life goes on without much regard to its well-being] be so bad? I want your take.
I don't see anything wrong with it, after all she is mourning an important part of her life. Of course mourning something for a year is a little extreme... I'd probably mourn for a day or so and move on with my life. I think people just need to open their eyes and realize, once you die it's over. The short and near-meaningless existence is over.
*sighs* I don't feel like going on a philosophical rant about how humans suck.
0
Thunder-san, mortality can be a blessing. I think we humans are lucky that we age 80 years. Birth, physical growth, emotional growth, mental growth (sorry for being redundant), adult experience, giving wisdom, accepting your own wisdom, death. Usually in that order.
To dwell on the edge between accepted wisdom and death [eternally], would be unlivable for me. You can only lose your virginity once, you know.
To dwell on the edge between accepted wisdom and death [eternally], would be unlivable for me. You can only lose your virginity once, you know.
0
How much emotional attachment does one have to someone else? That's what you're asking, same reason why people like their pets more like other people but are still great with people and then you get the lunatics from PETA on the other end of the scale. Those people are willing to break the law to "get even" with others.
0
I somehow feel that the point of a pet is to form an emotional attachment. In most cases they are there to act as some kind of companion so raising it without forming an emotional attachment would be counter productive. Pets are not farm animals that you plan to kill and eat or take resources from. In some cases pets are a person's only companion, sad as it is, which means a dramatic emotional response is to be expected.