Things are rarely as simple as we'd like them to be.

If we outlaw fur and leather and the eating of meat--just one example of the causes I've heard today-- it may lessen the suffering of animals, but what of the families who've made their livelihoods as farmers? When you attack them, in a way you're causing as much suffering as you claim to wish to prevent. Taking away their source of income adds to the problems of poverty, homelessness; and as for the animals themselves, most captive minks and foxes don't know how to survive in the wild; when they're let loose at best they die, at worst, they run feral and attack humans and other domesticated animals.

Social problems are no less complex; as nice as it would be to put a roof over every head, to ascertain that every person has enough to eat, clothes and shoes and all the necessities of life... what's to stop the person you give a dollar to on the subway from using it to buy beer, instead of dinner? When does an attempt to regulate charity infringe upon someone's freedom, their right to choose their own life?

It makes me think of that old man-- well.

Even if we were all able to agree upon our ideal world-- which is doubtful-- I don't think achieving our goals would be as simple as we imagine. This isn't to say we shouldn't strive for change-- we have to, if we want to better ourselves and our environment-- but we need to be aware of all the effects we have, not only hold up the successes.

We can't afford to aid some without at least considering the strain it will put on others.

Self-sacrifice is more persuasive than violent protest.

[ooc: Prone to playing the devil's advocate as she is today, you can probably milk her for donations if you can convince her your motives are pure |D But she does tend to be a little wishy-washy in her beliefs, if only because she'd ideally like everyone to be happy and thriving. ;_;

EDIT: hit by soulcrushing exhaustion, sob. i will get back to you in the morning. ilu. ♥♥♥