MONITORING PUBLIC OPINION:

"LEAVE A TRACE ON THE EARTH..."

In memory of A.S. Sosnina (1925 -2002)

These notes are a tribute to the memory of a friend who left us 12 years ago. And this is a belated attempt to pay tribute to the beauty and to a bright person, for many years former center attraction for very many and very different people. For me personally, there is also a certain motive of repentance here. Because in recent years in his life, most of his close friends (including me) were unable to rise above the famous saying: “Plato is my friend, but the truth is dearer,” to step over political differences and their own ambitions (about the essence of them later) in order to break through the increasingly entangled a veil of ideological loneliness, which he experienced deeply.

What kind of person was this - Anatoly Semenovich Sosnin? Front-line soldier: an 18-19 year old young man who got into the war and survived thanks to the fact that his older comrades protected him (which he realized much later). Journalist, writer, film playwright. Author of stories, plays and scripts for feature films and one and a half dozen documentaries (one of which, “The Battle of Smolensk,” is sure to be shown on Victory Day, and not only in Smolensk). But he is better known as one of the creators and the permanent Chairman of the St. Petersburg Society for the Protection of Animals (OSH) for 9 years, the organizer of the country's first animal shelters. It was in this capacity that his name was included in the book: “ The best people St. Petersburg” (1996) And, probably, that is why he was invited to a meeting with the English Queen Elizabeth, who visited our city in 1994.

He was only 12 days shy of his 77th birthday. Respectable age! But...thick, slightly curly hair, straight back, energetic gait. An ironic, sly look from under long eyelashes, in which at times some kind of poignant insecurity slipped through. And – a huge attractive charm. He was on equal terms with everyone: with the conventional woman Masha, feeding the cats in the gateway, and with high-brow intellectuals who loved to argue with him at a friendly table about the fate of Russia, about the eternal “damned questions” - what to do and who is to blame.

For animal rights activists, it will probably be a revelation to learn that the one with whom they sometimes desperately argued at meetings of the Society’s Board, with whom they transported animals and food for them to shelters in his old Zaporozhets, was a kind of “guru” in a wide circle friends and acquaintances. Among which there were many famous people. And for these latter, it may be surprising to know that day and night his phone did not stop ringing with cries for help, that at any time of the year, in any weather, he abandoned his work and rushed to these calls, rarely refusing anyone ( sometimes I had to, but I really didn’t like to do it). And even when I didn’t feel well or was busy with something, I still went, despite the protests of my family, to help out. Was it about rescuing an animal in trouble or about the urgent need to bring bones to Elena Vasilievna Vorobyeva (there was such an owner of the so-called home shelter - eternal memory to her) for her always hungry 40-50 dogs.

At the same time, he never tired of repeating, as if objecting to potential opponents, that when helping an animal, he first of all thinks about the person who needs such help. Because many did not understand and often asked him the same question: how can you deal with cats and dogs when we are full of suffering people, and no one cares about them. He said that it is impossible to be kind and merciful “from now on,” that these concepts are inseparable, and that those who do not love animals will never love people. In this position he had such powerful forerunners as Albert Schweitzer (his “reverence for life”) and A.I. Solzhenitsyn, through the mouth of his hero Kostoglotov in Cancer Ward, once spoke with precisely these words.

The fact that Anatoly Semenovich abandoned his cozy prestigious job at the table and switched to animals, which some considered an eccentricity. But he was not an eccentric. It was a conscious choice. He believed that every socially responsible person is obliged to leave his mark on the earth. And I saw it in practical help to people who love four-legged “our little brothers” and worry about them. It must be said that to dogs and cats (and, I should add, to birds: they always spilled out of his pockets). bread crumbs and cereals, with which he fed the birds on the nearby Champ de Mars, and they lay in wait for him and then trailed behind him for a long time like a kind of bird retinue) he did not come right away. For a long time both he and the animals existed as if in parallel worlds, almost without contact with each other. But one day a charming spaniel puppy was brought into the house...and that’s where it all began.

He saw, or rather, felt his kinship with funny baby, who, like a person, is capable of experiencing the same emotions, the same pain, the same affections. And to understand a lot - much more than one would expect, looking from afar. And then - suddenly, one day - he saw the hungry eyes of homeless animals. And that’s all: now he could no longer follow by indifferently. He began to go to the “Ocean” store almost every day (there were some in Leningrad), buy cheap “trifles” there and scatter them in sponsored places (yards). Often I kept him company and watched how this happened. The cats were already waiting for him, running from everywhere, and it was clear how happy he was at this “public animal recognition.” I bought kilograms of jelly for the dogs. Every day for almost 10 years. Long before the creation of the OZH.

Someone may ask: didn’t he see in his creativity an opportunity to leave a mark on the earth? After all, it was quite successful. Two plays (“Night Talk”, “Where Rivers Flow”) were staged in the capital’s theaters. Two feature films based on his scripts (“Mushroom Rain” and “From Paycheck to Paycheck”), shot by good directors – Alexander Koshelev and Aida Manasarova, respectively – were successful in the pre-perestroika era. One of them (“From Paycheck to Paycheck”) was even awarded at the All-Union Film Festival in 1986, despite the nagging of the film bosses, who saw in it the ideas of the Polish Solidarity. The second film has stood the test of time - it has been shown on TV more than once with a high four-star rating on a five-point scale. I'm not even talking about the many good scripts for documentaries, about stories, articles and reviews.

Everything that came from his pen was well thought out, talented, intelligent and honest. But he was very (maybe even excessively) self-critical, did not imagine himself to be a great writer, and understood that this was not how he could leave a “mark on the earth.” He wanted to do something visible and tangible to improve the situation with poor homeless dogs and cats.

At the age of 64, as first an ordinary member and then a member of the Board, he joins the Leningrad organization of the All-Union Society for the Protection of Animals, which emerged in 1989, willingly carrying out instructions as its very first Chairman, the famous writer M.M. Chulaki, and 28-year-old A.S. Gippius (yes, a relative of that same famous Zinaida Nikolaevna), who was his (Chulaki’s) deputy at that time. A year later he headed the Society himself. And it was then, under his leadership, that the real practical work on structuring and developing all areas of the organization’s activities, and most importantly, on the construction of shelters for homeless animals. The first in the country.

There was a catastrophic lack of money for this, and we had to do a lot ourselves, with our own hands. He did not shy away from any kind of work, setting an example for others: he obtained and brought building materials, made various devices, cages and enclosures, and once even installed a bathroom in the shelter. Undoubtedly, this brought satisfaction, but it also almost completely consumed time and energy. My already severely damaged health was being undermined. The situation was further complicated by the nervous atmosphere on the Board, not a single weekly meeting of which was complete without arguments and shouting. His family and friends were very worried about him and tried to persuade him to give up everything at the most critical moments. But he couldn't go for it.

Because he was a man with extremely developed sense duty, which manifested itself in everything he undertook. And this is not an empty pretentious phrase, but a reality well known to those around him. Maybe, this quality it was inherent, as they say, from nature, but it also came from the mind - it was consciously maintained and cultivated (which some people used without a twinge of conscience for their own selfish interests).

Another property was no less strongly developed in him, which could be considered a kind of exaggeration quite understandable in this situation - this is almost pathological modesty. It’s not enough to say that he didn’t like to push himself and his merits. It was unpleasant for him even to hear laudatory speeches addressed to him. And I think that he would be very dissatisfied with me for the panegyric style of these notes, as he probably would have thought. But how can one fail to note, for example, that he avoided using front-line regalia to obtain some benefits, did not strive to speak from the stands, which, however, he often had to do, since his position obliged him. Or it was simply impossible not to speak out, based on the principle: I cannot remain silent.

In general, he preferred to stay in the shadows. He assessed himself as a writer very self-critically (in my opinion, even too much). But overall, he knew his worth. And could it be otherwise when the “best minds” listened to him (quote from I. Brodsky: “and these best minds are Joseph Brodsky, Yakov Gordin ...”), certainly wanting to know his opinion on certain exciting controversial issues.

He also spoke about his past with amazing modesty: “I haven’t done anything outstanding in my life,” he writes in his autobiographical sketches. However, a little further we read: “However, life ordinary people may also be of historical interest. As a fact, as a side dish, as a drop of vinegar in a bland dish.” Elsewhere you can read: “My life is classified as prosperous.” But here are completely different lines: “Life passed through the steep and stormy periods of the cruel twentieth century... Without shying away from its hardships and dangers, to the best of your ability and ability(!, emphasis added – N.Sh.) I saw and thought a lot... I was literally two steps away from death – well, twenty times, no less.”

At the very beginning of these notes, I promised to talk about the essence of the ideological differences that separated him in his views on modern reality not only with his friends, but even in his family - with his wife and daughter. It’s a strange thing: this ironic man, a subtle analyst who enthusiastically accepted perestroika, now had a completely uncritical attitude towards power, no matter who was at the top of the pyramid - Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Putin. He generally approved of their steps, believing that they were ultimately leading the country in the right direction - away from a possible restoration of communist orders. This was the main thing for him. He justified a lot of negative and alarming things by attributing them to growing pains.

In his civic position and political views, he was a staunch democrat. And not only in the sense government system and the regime, but also in relation to the demos itself - the people. I couldn't stand it when this last one was called a redneck. Contrary to well-known formula: “every people deserves its own government” - did not hold it responsible for everything that happened after October, including over the years Stalin's repressions and the cult of personality.

He welcomed perestroika primarily for glasnost, for information openness, for freedom of speech and press. I was confident that the transition of the state to democratic norms and principles declared in the Constitution would be realized. And its entry onto the European, civilized path of development is almost inevitable. He was a historical optimist. He was attracted by the social democratic model of development and was pleased that Russia was being proclaimed social state. And what came of it to this day, he was not allowed to see. He was not so much unable to foresee the changes that occurred after him, as he was unwilling: his entire nature, hopeful about perestroika, resisted the idea that everything could return “to normal.” And within the historically foreseeable period.

In the last years of his life, there was a noticeable tightening of the regime; alarming tendencies towards a gradual rollback from early perestroika freedoms had already appeared. It seemed impossible not to see this. But he brushed off these negative signs as something temporary and insignificant, surprising his friends. Now some of them are asking themselves: would he really not have discerned anti-democratic tendencies in the actions of the authorities today? And they don't find an answer. And then they entered into discussions with him, sometimes quite fierce, which separated the disputants different sides ideological barricades. And it gave him a bitter feeling of loneliness. Obviously, unlike his opponents, he focused on some “coming years” (1), and not on “these” - his contemporary days.

Anatoly Semenovich had sick heart. And his relatives tried to protect him from unwanted emotions, begging him not to argue with him, which only aggravated his oppressive feeling of isolation. But it was not always possible to completely eliminate the discussion component in communication. And then he would fly into a rage and shout: “All you need to do is la-la, but for me it’s heartache.” Naturally, the interlocutor fell silent.

His clear mind demanded food, he closely followed publications, not missing a single significant one. But he wrote almost nothing himself. And not because he had nothing to say. It’s just that, clever, he believed that there were many people willing even without him. And everything he would like, one way or another, will be written sooner or later. Over the years, he increasingly preferred, so to speak, the conversational genre: “Orally, in a cheerful voice, at the tea table, over a glass (2) - that’s welcome.”

It would be wrong if the reader gets the idea of ​​him as an “angel with wings.” No, he wasn't. Could undeservedly insult, especially in anger. He didn’t understand people very well and was childishly trusting. Sometimes he brought the unworthy closer to the family and alienated those who could be relied upon. What did he himself suffer from in the first place? But at the same time he never lost his charm. It was impossible to be seriously offended by him. His friends loved him. He was sympathized with by many whom he encountered throughout his life. And, of course, in an attempt to revive after many years oblivion of the idea of ​​a merciful, humane attitude towards all living things, which was propagated back in tsarist Russia by the Imperial Society for the Protection of Animals, he left his mark on the earth. He succeeded. He did it.

N. Shustrova (in 1990 – 1998 – First Deputy Chairman of the St. Petersburg Society for the Protection of Animals

(1) “But we did not call for these days, but for the coming years” (A. Blok. To the Pushkin House).

(2) Just don’t think that he was partial to alcohol. Quite the opposite: his friends called him “Lemonade Joe.”

About A.S. Sosnina, see earlier on Kogita.ru:

(Attention! If, when you click on the name of the Kogita.ru material, you receive the answer: “Unfortunately, we did not find anything at the requested address,” do not be embarrassed and go to the end of the page that opens, where it says: “Perhaps you were looking for...” and the corresponding name. Click on it and you will be taken to the material you are looking for A. A.)

There are cats living in the basement of the neighboring house. They have a food place at one of the basement windows. They bring food there. Cats often appear there, eat, just sit and even allow themselves to be stroked or picked up.

I often pass by this cat collection when I go to the store. I saw this picture the other day.

A girl on a bicycle wanted to pass there at the moment when two adult women of about forty were talking with cats. They spoke in such sweet voices, and they had such sweet faces... And when they saw the girl, their faces became like those of the school principal, who broken glass Vasya scolds the bully. No, even angrier. The faces just became angry. And the voices are so angry: “Couldn’t you have gone somewhere else?” They ran over the child together.

You know, I noticed that people who love animals very much often hate people. Some people say so directly: “I hate you all. I only love my dog. She is my only true friend."

I have one friend, she has a family, two small children. But she only loves a cat: “Vasya is my most beloved son,” are her words. This is how it happens. Vasya is a cat.
Another dog lover who lives next door constantly feeds a pack of dogs. “I trust dogs. But people don’t,” she says.

Or grandmothers and aunties, in whose apartments six to eight cats live. And the stench is all over the entrance. These grandmothers and aunties usually have neighbors who are all bastards and don’t give them a quiet life with their cats. The smell, you see, bothers the neighbors.

Animals have always lived close to humans. Only they performed some function. The dogs were guarding. Cats caught mice, raised pigs for meat, and used horses to plow. During the war, dogs were also fattened for meat.

Now why are animals in apartments?
Now they have a different function. They replace human communication. When a person cannot establish relationships with other people and hates people, he gets animals.

You can always hug a cat or dog, talk to it, but you don’t have to listen to it. Comfortable. And not alone, and no effort is needed.

Children also sometimes ask mom and dad for a cat, a dog, or at least a hamster. But in children it is not out of hatred. This is due to lack of love. When children don't have enough love. Mom doesn’t hug or kiss, she has no time. She's either busy or in a bad mood. And you can hug and kiss a cat. Mom doesn’t play or listen, but you can play and talk with the cat. This is the only way a little person will not learn to communicate or care about other people. Maybe better more often than a child hug, rather than buy him a cat or dog?

I once asked a nine-year-old boy: “Why do you think some people say that animals more people love? To which I received the answer: “Because animals are defenseless.”

You can't say it more precisely. A cat can be neutered to stop it from wandering around. Keep the dog on a leash and walk it. But this won’t work with my husband. That's why it's easier to love animals. Is this only love?

Rather, it is a sign of loneliness - having a pet. And loneliness arises for only one reason when you are already an adult and independent, from hatred of other people. Therefore, it turns out that attachment to animals is a sign of hatred towards people.

WHO DOESN'T LIKE ANIMALS

Word to the specialist

Everything in nature is created in such a way that there is a close relationship, complete harmony of man with the entire animal world. No one is superfluous. As soon as someone is excluded from nature, an imbalance arises and flaws appear in the whole. Man, as a supreme being, is obliged to preserve, protect animals, feed and water them. These are the requirements for people who are given the opportunity to enjoy the entire world around them, including living beings living with them or near them. They must fulfill their duties towards them. Where do people come from who not only do not love animals, but treat them cruelly?

beating and killing them?

A person has a reflex from birth good relations to animals, birds, and other vertebrates. However, in the course of life, the wrong, sometimes malicious, cruel attitude of parents towards animals and, above all, towards abandoned animals that have become homeless, forms the same attitude in their children. At first this manifests itself as imitation of adults and adolescents, then this behavior becomes more and more consolidated and acquires pathological forms antisocial, aggressive, psychopathic nature.

Observations of mentally ill children show that everything seems to begin with something innocent and insignificant: just think, earthworm I cut it into pieces with glass and tore off the wings of a butterfly. Then he hit a sparrow or a pigeon with a slingshot, knocked out a cat’s eye, and threw kittens or puppies into a garbage chute. Children imitate adults; before their eyes, they drown kittens and puppies, mutilate them, and throw them out into the street. If in the evening someone, feeling sorry for a freezing animal, brought it into the entrance, then by morning it will disappear forever - it will be thrown out or killed. Exceptions, unfortunately, are rare.

Special studies have shown that 90% of criminals in childhood and adolescence They showed sophisticated sadism towards animals and were flayers. However, not only children with defects in upbringing and deviant (due to developmental disorders) behavior, but also some adults cruelly abuse animals, while experiencing pleasure.

Thus, the main subjects (I don’t 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 decompensate from their psychopathic state. Despite mental disabilities, they are completely sane and must be held accountable for crimes in accordance with the articles of the Civil and Criminal Codes.

Some mentally healthy people They are indifferent to animals - they do not love them, but they also do not show cruelty towards them. The third category consists of those who do not like animals and do not tolerate the people who love them. People endowed with the ability to sincerely, humanly empathize (“sympathy is given to us, just as grace is given to us,” remember?), to love animals unselfishly, cause them to hate. Unfortunately, often the means mass media add fuel to the fire, provoking the latter to commit crimes. This happens when incompetent journalists get down to business, not those who know the roots problems that are not responsible for what they write or say, in a word, they do not know what they are doing. Promoting intolerant attitudes towards animals is also criminal, because,

makes a significant contribution to the tightening of morals in society as a whole.

People who take care of animals, especially homeless, abandoned ones, feed them and birds, worthy of respect, are real people, people with a capital “P”. They should not be insulted or condemned, but should be 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 doctor - psychoneurologist, I can state that this normal people. Yes, they are “white”! If there were more “white crows”, there would be fewer black crows.

Raising a child in isolation from the animal world is an abnormal upbringing, the upbringing of narcissists, egoists who, even if they do not show obvious cruelty at first, will still treat coldly not only animals, but also their parents. In old age, they will feel this and understand that they raised their children incorrectly, but it will be too late.

Workers of disinfection stations, disinfection departments, housing offices and regional administration offices, fighting rodents, lay out poisons in the basements of residential buildings. However, instead of rats, they destroy abandoned cats and kittens, which find the only shelter there, especially in winter. All ventilation openings are bricked up. 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 goes for children's and medical institutions, where dogs and cats are mercilessly destroyed. Animals that have become homeless (note, always due to human fault) should not be destroyed, but kept in shelters and specially designated places of residence for the purpose of transferring them to old or new owners.

Catching animals should not be carried out by subjects (and the overwhelming majority are asocial types) who hate them. Catching, and only sanitary (there can be no other way), must be carried out mercifully, with minimal mental trauma to those present, without provoking heart attacks and hypertensive crises. The reality of this, to put it mildly, is far from it, so it is better to give the animal to sympathizers, they will find a home for it themselves - they will leave it with themselves or with friends for a while, 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 basic knowledge about animals, and misconceptions about them. Some, barely getting out of barracks and crowded apartments, react hysterically to animals. God forbid, a sparrow or a dove lands on their windowsill, and if someone nearby is also feeding the birds... - screams are heard from the window - threats to kill both the birds and the people who feed them.

A callous attitude towards animals is characteristic not only of ordinary people, but also of those who are involved in the moral and aesthetic education of children. One winter I picked up a dying kitten that a homeless person had thrown on the asphalt. The closest building was music school. There I managed to stop the bleeding, but the kitten was in comatose(profound impairment of consciousness). School workers ordered the kitten to be thrown outside. I took him with me and went out. He grew up and became a member of our family. Passing by this school, I remember the story with the kitten.

There are people who do not like animals because they suffer neurotic disorders and experience unreasonable fear: how not to get infected! Moreover, their argumentation is so primitive that it reaches extreme absurdity, indicating that they have mental disorders. There are patients with obsessions and fears. Some, for example, are afraid of becoming infected with psittacosis from birds, worms, lichen from cats and dogs, etc. Others insist that AIDS and syphilis are transmitted from birds, which is why they maim and kill them. This category cannot be corrected in any way; it is impossible to convince such subjects.

We have touched only a small part of a comprehensive problem ill-treatment with animals. Much remains behind the scenes. As you can see, this problem affects both children and adults. It has great moral significance and characterizes the moral content of society.

• < Назад
• Forward >

But what about a person's love for a cat? There are also those who do not like these charming little animals... Why?!

What's wrong with this?

The cat, as you know, is the “tailed doctor,” an animal that can heal people, that can feel people, and that almost everyone loves! If a person is constantly trying to drive away a cat and focuses on how much he doesn’t like it, then this is a reason to really think about such a person. After all, a cat, like a dog, has lived next to humans for many centuries, and, unlike a dog, does not hunt or guard for its owner!

What is the cat doing?

Rats and mice, which are still sometimes exterminated by a cat, are something of a related service. The cat has a different purpose. Cats, they say, have a unique bioenergetic system. Seals can correct the biofields of the surrounding space, sometimes even completely restoring and stabilizing them! Cats really are ways to normalize blood pressure, remove headache, and also help with stress.

At the same time, the cat reflects the human condition. If everything is in order with the owner, then the cat will sleep a lot, wash itself, and eat well. She will hide behind the sofa and closet if a person feels bad! At the same time, the cat will always come to calm down someone who has been unfairly offended.

Connection with a cat

There are no people who don't care about cats at all. There are those who love these animals and those who hate them! There are practically no people who are indifferent to cats. Typically, cats are hated by alcoholics, as well as women with an unstable personal life. And also children who have been subjected to domestic violence. In a word, those for whom everything is so bad that cat stabilization is simply unbearable for them - this is the impact that they are trying to avoid. These are people who don't want to accept help.

Psychologist Alina Cherubini confirms: take any person who is satisfied with his unhappy life, and suggest that he go to a psychotherapist or take calming pills. But he will simply send you away!.. It’s the same with cats - we either accept help from the “tailed doctor”, or a helmet and him, so that it does not interfere with reveling in our suffering.

JoeInfoMedia journalist Diana Lynn reminds us that we wrote about this not long ago, and mentioned the main thing: you can’t get out of a binge if you’re not ready for it! If a wife, for example, tries to feed her husband healthy pills, and the husband is not at all eager to stop drinking immediately, then what will come out of this is best case scenario about nothing, and at worst - another outburst of husband’s anger and domestic violence to such a degree that it will end in divorce... however, much more traumatic than if there were no attempts to forcefully help. Any violence is bad, and it doesn’t matter whether it is for the good or not.

So, don't force cats on anyone, but remember: a person who doesn't like cats doesn't want help.

Word to the specialist

“Everything in nature is created in such a way that there is a close relationship, complete harmony of man with the entire animal world. No one is superfluous. As soon as someone is excluded from nature, an imbalance arises and flaws appear in the whole. Man, as a supreme being, is obliged to preserve, protect animals, feed and water them. These are the requirements for people who are given the opportunity to enjoy the entire world around them, including living beings living with them or near them. They must fulfill their duties towards them. Where do people come from who not only do not love animals, but treat them cruelly, beat and kill them?

From birth, a person has a reflex of a kind attitude towards animals, birds, and other vertebrates. However, in the course of life, the wrong, sometimes malicious, cruel attitude of parents towards animals and, above all, towards abandoned animals that have become homeless, forms the same attitude in their children. At first this manifests itself as imitation of adults and adolescents, then this behavior becomes more and more consolidated, acquiring pathological forms of an asocial, aggressive, psychopathic nature.

Observations of mentally ill children show that everything seems to begin with something innocent and insignificant: just think, an earthworm was cut into pieces with a piece of glass, or the wings of a butterfly were torn off. Then he hit a sparrow or a pigeon with a slingshot, knocked out a cat’s eye, and threw kittens or puppies into a garbage chute. Children imitate adults; before their eyes, they drown kittens and puppies, mutilate them, and throw them out into the street. If in the evening someone, feeling sorry for a freezing animal, brought it into the entrance, then by morning it will disappear forever - it will be thrown out or killed. Exceptions, unfortunately, are rare.

Special studies have shown that 90% of criminals in childhood and adolescence showed sophisticated sadism towards animals and were flayers. However, not only children with defects in upbringing and deviant (due to developmental disorders) behavior, but also some adults cruelly abuse animals, while experiencing pleasure.

Thus, the main subjects (I don’t 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 decompensate from their psychopathic state. Despite mental disabilities, they are completely 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 love them, but they do not show cruelty towards them. The third category consists of those who do not like animals and do not tolerate the people who love them. People endowed with the ability to sincerely, humanly empathize (“sympathy is given to us, just as grace is given to us,” remember?), to love animals unselfishly, cause them to hate. Unfortunately, the media often add fuel to the fire, provoking the latter to commit crimes. This happens when incompetent journalists get down to business, do not know the roots of the problem, are not responsible for what they write or say, in a word, do not know what they are doing. Propaganda of intolerant attitudes 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 homeless, abandoned ones, feed them and birds, worthy of respect, are real people, people with a capital “P”. They should not be insulted or condemned, but should be 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 fewer black crows.

Raising a child in isolation from the animal world is an abnormal upbringing, the upbringing of narcissists, egoists who, even if they do not show obvious cruelty at first, will still treat coldly not only animals, but also their parents. In old age, they will feel this and understand that they raised their children incorrectly, but it will be too late.

Workers at disinfection stations, disinfection departments, housing offices and regional distribution centers, while fighting rodents, lay out poisons in the basements of residential buildings. However, instead of rats, they destroy abandoned cats and kittens, which find the only shelter there, especially in winter. All ventilation openings are bricked up. 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 due to human fault) should not be destroyed, but kept in shelters and specially designated places of residence for the purpose of transferring them to old or new owners.

Catching animals should not be carried out by subjects (and the overwhelming majority are asocial types) who hate them. Catching, and only sanitary (there can be no other way), must be carried out mercifully, with minimal mental trauma to those present, without provoking heart attacks and hypertensive crises in them. The reality of this, to put it mildly, is far from it, so it is better to give the animal to sympathizers, they will find a home for it themselves - they will leave it with themselves or with friends for a while, and then they will find a home for it.

A significant part of people have a negative attitude towards animals because of their selfishness, limited intelligence, lack of basic knowledge about animals, and misconceptions about them. Some, barely getting out of barracks and crowded apartments, react hysterically to animals. God forbid, a sparrow or a dove lands on their windowsill, and if someone nearby is also feeding the birds... - screams are heard from the window - threats to kill both the birds and the people who feed them.

A callous attitude towards animals is characteristic not only of ordinary people, but also of those who are involved in the moral and aesthetic education of children. One winter I picked up a dying kitten that a homeless person had thrown on the asphalt. The closest building was a music school. There I managed to stop the bleeding, but the kitten was in a comatose state (profound impairment of consciousness). School workers ordered the kitten to be thrown outside. I took him with me and went out. He grew up and became a member of our family. Passing by this school, I remember the story with the kitten.

There are people who do not like animals because they suffer from neurotic disorders and experience unreasonable fear: lest they get infected! Moreover, their argumentation is so primitive that it reaches extreme absurdity and indicates the presence of mental disorders. There are patients with obsessions and fears. Some, for example, are afraid of becoming infected with psittacosis from birds, worms, lichen from cats and dogs, etc. Others insist that AIDS and syphilis are transmitted from birds, which is why they maim and kill them. This category cannot be corrected in any way; it is impossible to convince such subjects.

We have touched only a small part of the complex problem of animal cruelty. Much remains behind the scenes. As you can see, this problem affects both children and adults. It has great moral significance and characterizes the moral content of society.”