The fallacy-followers believe that if you care about animals, you don't care about people. It's idiotic.
That's like saying that if you love one of your children, you can't love the other. Or if you jones for chocolate, you can't care for pizza. If you think that an innocent animal's life counts, then you "don't care" about humans.
We should all care about Sean Conroy.
Outside of an infinitesimal number of zealots, animal-lovers' empathy always includes humans, in my experience. Some Vick defenders accused me of not caring about people. How do I defend myself? Point to my work for Variety, the Children's Charity, for almost 20 years, raising more than $350,000? The scores of columns I have written about people in need? Should I ask my critics what they do for people, how much they give to charity, what causes they volunteer for?
Most animal-lovers also care about children because animals are like children in many ways - in their dependency on us, their innocence and their trust, most especially dogs, which are not only our "best friends" but also our loyal servants in so many ways.
"Charley from Jersey" left me a voice mail saying, in part: "This is for you and the rest of the people who can't seem to forgive a guy who killed a freaking dog."
Charley conveniently minimizes Vick's crimes. Dozens, maybe hundreds, of dogs were tortured or killed while in Vick's hands.
People who care only for people and for nothing in the natural world - meaning animals, and the environment - there's something wrong with them. It's not just Me-First-ism, it's Me-Only-ism.
That's selfish, but animal-abusers are far worse. They are sociopaths.
What is called "the link" is a well-established scientific fact.
