Word - specialist
“Everything in nature is so created that there is a close relationship, complete harmony of man with the entire animal world. Nobody is redundant. As soon as someone is excluded from nature, an imbalance arises, flaws appear in a single whole. Man, as a higher being, is obliged to preserve, protect animals, feed and water them. These are the requirements for people who are given to enjoy the whole world around them, including living beings living with them or not far from them. They must fulfill their obligations towards them. Where do people come from, not only not loving animals, but cruelly treating them, beating and killing them?
From birth, a person has a reflex of kindness towards animals, birds, and other vertebrates. However, in the process of life, the wrong, sometimes malicious, cruel attitude of parents towards animals and, above all, towards those abandoned, who have become homeless, forms the same attitude in their children. At first, this manifests itself as an imitation of adults and adolescents, then this behavior becomes more and more fixed, acquiring pathological forms of an asocial, aggressive, psychopathic nature.
Observations of mentally ill children show that everything starts as if from an innocent, insignificant: just think, an earthworm was cut into pieces with a piece of glass, the wings of a butterfly were torn off. Then he knocked out a sparrow or a dove with a slingshot, knocked out the eye of a cat, threw kittens or puppies into the garbage chute. Children imitate adults, before their eyes they drown kittens, puppies, maim them, throw them out into the street. If in the evening someone, taking pity on a freezing animal, brought it into the entrance, then by morning it will disappear forever - it will be thrown out or killed. Exceptions are, unfortunately, rare.
Special studies have shown that 90% of criminals in childhood and adolescence showed sophisticated sadism towards animals, were flayers. However, not only children with defects in upbringing and deviant (due to developmental disabilities) behavior, but also some adults cruelly mock animals, while experiencing pleasure.
Thus, the main subjects (I do not even call them people, because they are devoid of true human content) who show cruelty to animals are psychopaths - subjects with antisocial character traits, aggressive, destructive tendencies. They are especially dangerous when they have decompensated their psychopathic state. Despite mental deviations, they are quite sane and must be held accountable for crimes in accordance with the articles of the Civil and Criminal Codes.
Some mentally healthy people are indifferent to animals - they do not like them, but they do not show cruelty towards them either. The third category are those who do not like animals and do not tolerate those people who love them. People who are endowed with the ability to sincerely, humanly empathize (“and we are given sympathy, as we are given grace”, remember?), disinterestedly love animals, arouse hatred in them. Unfortunately, the media often add fuel to the fire, provoking the latter to commit crimes. This happens when incompetent journalists get down to business, who do not know the roots of the problem, who are not responsible for what they write or say, in a word, who do not know what they are doing. Promotion of intolerance towards animals is also criminal, because it makes a significant contribution to the tightening of morals in society as a whole.
People who take care of animals, especially the homeless, abandoned, feed them and birds worthy of respect, these are real people, people with a capital letter. They should not be insulted or condemned, but set as an example. They personify the spiritual health of the nation, as the author of an article about such “white crows” published in Izvestia once accurately and succinctly formulated. As a psychoneurologist, I can state that these are normal people. Yes, they are white! If there were more "white crows", there would be less black crows.
Raising a child in isolation from the animal world is an abnormal upbringing, the upbringing of self-lovers, egoists, who, if they do not show obvious cruelty at first, in the future will still treat not only animals, but also their parents coldly. In old age, they will feel it for themselves and understand that they raised their children incorrectly, but it will be too late.
Workers of dezstantsii, dezotdeliya, ZhEKov and REU, fighting rodents, lay out poisons in the basements of residential buildings. However, instead of rats, they destroy abandoned cats and kittens, which find their only shelter there, especially in winter. All ventilation openings are sealed. No measures are taken to prevent poisoning and mass death of animals. This is a clear manifestation of cruelty, for which the perpetrators must be held accountable (see the section “Environmental crimes” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). By the way, they seem to have completely forgotten that cats themselves catch rats. The same applies to children's and medical institutions, where dogs and cats are mercilessly destroyed. Animals that have become homeless (note, always through the fault of a person) should not be destroyed, but kept in shelters and places of residence specially designated for them in order to be transferred to old or new owners.
Capture of animals should not be done by subjects (and in the vast majority of these are asocial types) who hate them. Catching, and only sanitary (there can be no other), should be carried out mercifully, with minimal mental trauma to those present, without provoking heart attacks and hypertensive crises in them. The reality is, to put it mildly, far from this, so it’s better to give the animal to sympathizers, they themselves will attach it - leave it for a while with themselves or with friends, and then find a home for it.
A significant part of people have a negative attitude towards animals because of their selfishness, limited intelligence, lack of elementary knowledge about animals, misconceptions about them. Some, barely getting out of the barracks and crowded apartments, react hysterically to animals. God forbid, a sparrow or a dove sits on their windowsill, and if someone else is nearby and feeds the birds ... - screams are heard from the window - threats to kill both the birds and the people who feed them.
A soulless attitude towards animals is inherent not only to the inhabitants, but also to those who are engaged in the moral and aesthetic education of children. One winter, I picked up a dying kitten, which a homeless person threw on the asphalt. The closest was the building of the music school. There I managed to stop the bleeding, but the kitten was in a coma (profound impairment of consciousness). School officials ordered the kitten to be thrown out into the street. I took him with me and left. He grew up and became a member of our family. Passing by this school, I remember the story of the kitten.
There are people who do not like animals because they suffer from neurotic disorders and experience unreasonable fear: how not to get infected! Moreover, their argumentation is so primitive that it reaches the extreme absurdity, it indicates the presence of mental deviations in them. There are patients with obsessions and fears. Some, for example, are afraid of contracting ornithosis from birds, worms, lichen from cats and dogs, etc. Others insist that AIDS and syphilis are transmitted from birds, so they maim and kill them. This category does not lend itself to any correction, it is impossible to convince such subjects.
We have touched on only a small part of the overarching problem of cruelty to animals. A lot is left behind the scenes. As you can see, this problem affects both children and adults. It has great moral significance, it characterizes the moral content of society.”
People tend to be altruistic, i.e. gratuitous help to other people, but some gratuitously help not people, but animals, even homeless animals. The question arises: why do they do it? Employees of the Faculty of Psychology of Moscow State University thought about this question. The results of their research have been published in the journals Issues of Psychology and Society and Animals.
It must be said that in the world psychological literature there are very few studies on the topic of helping homeless animals. Perhaps this is a consequence of the fact that all such studies were carried out in the United States and Western Europe, where philanthropy is very developed. We can say that helping someone has become the norm of life there, a good tradition. And in these countries, apparently, they do not notice the difference between helping homeless people and helping homeless animals. It is not surprising that in all such works the question of the reasons for altruistic help to animals was not clearly posed, and therefore no clear answer was found. In Russia the situation is different. On the one hand, charity is not yet very developed here; in the corresponding international rating, our country is in the second hundred. On the other hand, people who help animals (they are called animal rights activists) are quite active, they even hold rallies in defense of animals. Therefore, it can be assumed that animal protection is a special kind of charity, different from helping people.
Psychologists put forward two initial hypotheses about why people engage in animal protection. One hypothesis was that animal rights activists (the vast majority of them women) have problems communicating with people, which they compensate for by helping animals. That is, these people do not have a family and / or children or work. It may also be that there is a family and work, but the animal rights activist is not satisfied with his family or work. Another hypothesis was that animal rights activists are more sensitive to the plight of others, including animals, than the average person. When an animal rights activist sees a stray dog, she cannot pass by, unlike ordinary people who are not captured by this picture. The desire to engage in animal protection may be due to both hypotheses, since they are not mutually exclusive.
The studies involved two groups of subjects (all women). One group was made up of animal rights activists, who were found on the Cat and Dog website. The other group represented ordinary people and consisted of students, acquaintances and friends of the experimenters. The only difference between the groups was that the representatives of the second group were not found on the site of animal rights activists. The groups were equalized by mean age. The research was conducted over the Internet and was anonymous.
To test the first hypothesis, all subjects were asked if they had a family, children, or a job. If the family and work were, then satisfaction with them was assessed using special questionnaires. To test the second hypothesis, it was proposed to evaluate, on a five-point scale, a number of statements about the attitude towards homeless animals, as well as about the attitude towards the poor and homeless people.
The first hypothesis was not confirmed. It turned out that the animal rights activists, to the same extent as other people, have a family, children, work, and they are also satisfied with their family and work. It turned out that homeless animals evoke stronger feelings in animal rights activists than in other people, but, to the complete surprise of the researchers, it turned out that animal advocates are less willing to take care of homeless people than other subjects! For example, animal rights activists are less likely to be willing to give alms and they are less likely to want to help a homeless person. The second hypothesis, therefore, is also not confirmed, because it suggested that animal rights activists should care more about both animals and people.
It turns out that there are ordinary people in all respects, who, however, to some extent, love animals more than people! Among the statements that had to be assessed, there was directly this: "I love animals more than people." The most common response to it (sampling mode) among animal rights activists was "absolutely true", and among other people - "no, it's not".
The question immediately arises as to where animal rights activists come from. After all, no religion, no ethical teaching in the world believes that animals should be loved more than people. In addition, people raise animals to eat them. Those animals that are considered domestic and not eaten in some countries may be eaten in others. Thus, the desire to engage in animal protection cannot be explained by the fact that some special attitude towards certain species of animals has become fixed in society. Since the desire to engage in animal protection is difficult to deduce from social norms, it is possible that some kind of innate mechanism underlies the activity of animal rights activists.
It can be assumed that when the first animals were domesticated, and these were dogs, then in some tribes such animals were treated better, and in others worse. In those tribes where they were treated better, the survival rate of dogs was higher, and this, in turn, contributed to the survival of people. Love for animals in these groups was fixed at the genetic level, and then spread to the entire human population. This explanation has, however, one drawback. It is rather difficult to imagine a situation where animals are treated better, but people are not. At least in the modern world, the humanization of the attitude towards animals seems to be connected with the humanization of the attitude towards people. But then a stronger love for both animals and people should have been genetically transmitted. This would be consistent with the second initial hypothesis of the study. But this hypothesis was not confirmed. It turns out that in order to develop only love for animals without strengthening love for people, some event had to happen in which animals played a very important role in people's lives.
For example, it is known that when our ancestors came to Europe from Africa 45,000 years ago, Neanderthals inhabited Europe, but they died out soon after. Why did this happen? Until recently, it was assumed that the Neanderthals lost because they were inferior in mental capacity. However, a lot of evidence has recently accumulated that Neanderthals were no more stupid than the ancestors of modern people. American researcher Pat Shipman put forward an interesting hypothesis that wolves, which they domesticated and turned into dogs, provided an advantage to people, and wrote a whole book on this topic. Hunting is much more efficient with dogs, and therefore people won.
However, Shipman's hypothesis has a weak point - if Neanderthals were no more stupid than humans, why didn't they also domesticate wolves? It can be thought that people were able to domesticate wolves, because among them, due to a random mutation, the ancestors of modern animal rights activists appeared. They protected and saved future dogs when they came to the camps of ancient hunters, just as fiercely as their descendants protect and save animals today. Indeed, hunting is not an easy task, and here the game comes by itself, but the ancient animal rights activists did not allow animals to be killed, which led to the gradual transformation of wolves into dogs. But the Neanderthals did not have such a mutation, so they could not domesticate wolves and then disappeared. It turns out that humanity is very much indebted to animal rights activists. Of course, more research is needed to test this or other hypotheses about the desire to help animals for free.
The cat is the closest friend, the second "I" of the owner, so if someone does not like the cat, then he does not like her mistress. Cats are usually bred by ladies who harmoniously combine the advantages of both sexes. Such women are beautiful and smart, feminine and quick, hardworking and efficient, pretty and persistent in achieving their goals.
Unmarried cats often replace a non-existent child, because a cat also needs care, affection and tenderness, it is a playful and capricious animal, like a child. A single woman with a cat treats men with distrust and is reluctant to enter into close relationships with them. A man who likes cats recognizes a woman's right to be independent. But a bachelor with a cat is a completely self-sufficient person, and it will take a lot of strength to win his heart. Hatred of cats can mean hatred of all women. In psychology, there is even a term "cat-phobia" (scientifically - eylurophobia). Ladies who despise cats have a bad attitude towards themselves deep down, and cat-phobic men do not really love women.
Dogs
For a woman, her dog is almost always a symbol of a man, even if the dog is female. Looking at the breed, you can always tell what kind of masculine qualities the hostess appreciates the most.
A large shepherd dog means that its owner needs a protector and reliable support. Bulldog means that a woman appreciates her partner's devotion, reliability, solidity, constancy and sense of humor. The lady with the Doberman has iron willpower and is defiant with men - who can protect me better than my dog? A woman who holds a malevolent, yapping, biting and cowardly creature in her arms makes too high demands on men, expecting to find in them some incredibly wonderful qualities. As a result, such women are rarely happy in marriage. Almost everyone who loves dogs is intolerant of the independence of others and seeks to control the lives and actions of loved ones.
It is believed that only evil and cruel people cannot stand dogs, but this is not always the case. Opponents of bugs and bugs may simply be shy, shy, may be afraid of these biting and loudly barking predators, or perhaps they simply prefer to seek love and friendship in the human world and do not understand why they might need this little wolf. Many people are disgusted by the need to train another living creature and become its owner, and therefore they flatly refuse to get a dog at home.
Hamsters and guinea pigs
Everyone who loves small fluffy animals needs the protection of a strong man, tenderness, affection and care, because they themselves feel small and defenseless. That's why children so often ask to buy a hamster, they want to be big, strong, caring friends for tiny animals. If a person cannot stand the stupidity of other people, then he is unlikely to be touched by the sight of a hamster or guinea pig.
parrots
Exotic bright birds like romantics, melancholy, sensitive, vulnerable people who are bored in silence and loneliness. The parrot reminds of tropical islands, fabulous pirates and compensates for the lack of travel in ordinary life. Birds are not tolerated by irritable, quick-tempered, workaholics, overworked, sybarites: loudly chirping and piercingly screaming parrots violate their comfort, confuse thoughts and confuse plans.
Rats
To love rats means to declare to the whole world: I am not a bore! I have original thinking, and your stereotypes have no power over me! A fan of rats will first study everything, touching and checking, and only then will he draw his own conclusions. And he doesn't care what other people think. If a child brought home a rat, it means that he has a sociable, cheerful, kind-hearted character. Rats are not liked by conservatives, shy, timid, cautious people who walk in life only on beaten paths.
According to wday.ru
Cats are very picky about the people they love. Getting recognized by a cat is unforgettable. Sometimes family members compete with each other so that the cat loves them the most - but not everyone succeeds. Even if you feed the cat most often, clean up after her in the toilet, this does not guarantee her love.
It may seem unfair, but for your cat, bonding with people is about more than meeting basic needs. Cats are independent animals and do not always need a human to take care of themselves. When they choose their favorite people, they think more than about who feeds them and who cleans up after them.
1. Personal space.
In an instant, the cat wants you to caress her behind the ears, then a moment later, she scratches your hand, demanding that you stop touching her. Cats are known for being moody and they only want what they want when they want it.
In most cases, the person who best recognizes these mood swings also becomes the loved one. A cat will not like someone who interrupts her sleep to play or pet her when she is not in the mood.
The cat loves people who respect her personal space. If someone does this, the cat will learn to appreciate his restraint. She will reward him later when her mood changes.
2. Character.
Like humans, cats have their own personalities. Some of them prefer an active life, others are comfortable, only in a calm environment. Depending on the character, the cat chooses its friends based on who best suits its character.
The cat is extremely observant, she knows who is cheerful in the family, who is quiet, who is boring, and who is loud and aggressive. She will gravitate towards a person who behaves similarly to her, and she will act more withdrawn towards everyone else.
3. Trust.
If someone similar to you in height, age, hair color, has harmed your cat in the past, even if you do everything right, it may be difficult for your cat to distinguish you from the abuser in her past.
Also, if you've ever done something your cat didn't like. Stepped on her tail too many times, treated her rudely or forced her to be in your arms when she did not want it, rest assured, the cat will remember everything.
The cat chooses her favorite people based on who she can trust. If the cat treats you coldly, you should think about your actions in the past. 
4. Love one.
Many psychologists say that there are certain breeds of cats that can only love one person. Experts say Bengal, Himalayan, Siamese and Norwegian Forest cats are examples of such cats. Once they find a person they like, they are not interested in hanging out with anyone else.
Mixed breed cats are just as likely to love only one person as other breeds. It's more of a state of mind where a cat is happy to interact with one person and doesn't feel the need to love anyone else.
If a cat hasn't chosen you as their loved one, it can be disappointing, but just because you're not the first in her heart doesn't mean she doesn't love you. 
From time immemorial, people hunted animals, ate their meat and dressed in their skins. Now the situation has not changed much. But there are also man-eating animals that prefer to eat only people - it is not known what caused this - either a peculiarity of digestion, or simply a sense of revenge that has been born inside them since ancient times. Beware and be afraid of these carnivores that eat humans as food. You can’t run away or hide from them, they are much fiercer and smarter than their relatives, who do not consider people edible.
The first to open our list are the Lions of Njombe. This story originates in 1932, when in Tanzania, not far from the city of Nyombe, a flock of cannibal lions began to methodically exterminate the human race. More than one and a half thousand people destroyed these monsters> during their reign in those lands. And only the arrival of hunters, who exterminated about 15 of these cruelest animals, pacified them and forced them to leave this place. But the locals knew that it wasn't really the hunters who helped them get rid of the nightmare. The lions appeared just when the local shaman was thrown from his post. After that, he got angry and sent a curse on people in the form of bloodthirsty creatures. And only when he was returned to his place of "work", the animals left.
For many years, a real cannibal monster lived in the swamps of Alabama and Florida - a crocodile named Two-toed Tom. He was called two-toed because he had only two claws on one paw - it was from them that the animal was calculated, which left characteristic traces. Not only did Tom attack animals, but he also fell in love with the taste of human flesh, especially women. Many legends are associated with this representative of the fauna, for a long time all the inhabitants of the surroundings in which he lived were afraid of him. And not only the bullets did not take this enchanted crocodile, who was considered the messenger of hell - even the explosives that destroyed all life in the swamps where he lived, left the monster unharmed.
Big and toothy threaten the representatives of the human race in all corners of the planet. In Japan, for example, at one time they were very afraid of a bear named Kesagake. This is a huge male who lived and ran in a Japanese village with a population of just a couple of people. When the bear was wounded, he went berserk and began his revenge on the human race. First, he killed a woman and a child from the same house. Then, he distracted the hunters and broke into another house, in which he tore apart a woman and two children. In two days, the cannibal killed six people. And only one hunter was able to kill a three-meter beast, weighing about 380 kilograms. And the inhabitants of the cursed village left it forever. If you would like to communicate more closely with a representative of this species, you can take a look at our article - there you will find out where this can be done.
Many horror stories have been written about killer sharks and many films have been made. Once upon a time, at the beginning of the 20th century, people did not yet know how dangerous these marine predators were for them. But somehow, off the coast of New Jersey, a shark attacked a man who was swimming. This was seen by several people who rushed to the aid of the wounded victim. But when the man was taken ashore, the doctors could no longer help him. Within a few weeks after the event, several more people were killed by monsters, among whom were careless children. When fishermen managed to catch a white shark, inside of which they found human remains, representatives of this species were dubbed cannibals. This series of attacks was called one of the most brutal in the history of the country.
In the middle of the 18th century in France, in the province of Zhivaudan, the most cruel and mysterious monster of all known to mankind lived. They called him that - Zhivodansky Beast. No one knows exactly what species he belonged to, Blog Rybalych believes that it was just a huge wolf. The first victim of the monster was a little girl. Then he fell silent for a while. But then he took on people with even greater cruelty. About 210 people visited his paws and teeth, 112 of them died, and the rest remained crippled. It was rumored that in fact it was a werewolf who was sent to earth in order to punish people for their sinfulness. It is believed that the hunter Jean Chastel killed the monster with silver bullets.
At the end of the 19th century, a killer tigress appeared in Nepal, which for a long time kept in fear all the inhabitants who inhabited the territory near the Himalayas. Somehow, hunters unsuccessfully wounded her, breaking two of her fangs. The tigress was no longer able to hunt animals, but people became tasty prey for her - either due to their easy accessibility, or simply as those who spoiled her appearance. More than two hundred people were destroyed by this striped fury. Then the army was sent to fight it. The soldiers also could not cope with the monster, but managed to drive her to the territory of India. There, the tigress had already lost her fear altogether - she hunted even during the day, leaving entire villages empty. But the monster was able to destroy the brave hunter, who found him in the bloody footprints. Surely, according to the customs of that time, he was immediately declared a saint. And this is not surprising - the Shampavat tigress killed 436 people.
Leopards killed people 3 million years ago. It was this age that the bones were, on which scientists found marks of the teeth of this beast. Despite the fact that these are meat-eating animals, few of them eat people. One of the exceptions was a leopard from India, nicknamed Panarsky (most of all, the inhabitants of the province of Panar suffered from his fangs. More than five hundred people were destroyed by this monster. It is believed that the wound that the animal got from some negligent hunter made him so cruel. this beast from the bullets of a famous hunter, who, by the way, also killed the Shampavat tigress.
Not only in the past were animals dangerous to people. We have already written about what we should be afraid of today and now:
