PDA

View Full Version : Re: Stupid pet (owner?) guardian trick


Craig Petersen
August 25th 03, 10:50 PM
I would like to know "who" this woman is so I can file animal abuse
charges against her. People this idotic do not deserve to have pets
period! Furthermore, I would like to see more people refer to the term
"guardian" rather than "owner". "Ownership" implies that your pet is an
inanimate object like your DVD player or television. Untill that happens
we are going to have pile of **** people who do these things to
defenseless animals because they think of them as property.

As far as I'm concerned, pets/animals are just like childern and should
be protected as such. You can bet that if this woman had done this to a
child she would be in jail for child abuse!

I do agree with some of the other posters, drag her ass out into the
middle of nowhere and let her swim back (NO flotation device)



Bobcat wrote:
> We watched last night's TV show "What Were You Thinking". It featured a
> woman who must rank at the very top of misguided, stupid cat owners. At the
> beach she takes her cat along with her on her surf board. We saw the poor
> wet miserable bedraggled creature hunched down on the board, ears flattened,
> hanging on for dear life. But it got worse. Then she tossed her cat
> overboard and it paddled desperately for shore, but apparently she drags it
> back and makes it do it again to the point of exhaustion, saying that the
> cat loves to swim! Any suggestions for what we should do with the woman,
> after we rescue the cat?
>
>

bewtifulfreak
August 26th 03, 12:28 AM
Craig Petersen wrote:
> I would like to know "who" this woman is so I can file animal abuse
> charges against her. People this idotic do not deserve to have pets
> period! Furthermore, I would like to see more people refer to the term
> "guardian" rather than "owner". "Ownership" implies that your pet is
> an inanimate object like your DVD player or television. Untill that
> happens
> we are going to have pile of **** people who do these things to
> defenseless animals because they think of them as property.

That's a very good point; we are indeed "guardians" not "owners" of our
pets; we have chosen to look after them, and they depend on us to look out
for their well-being just as if we were guardian of a child (we would never
say we "owned" a child!). The trouble is, you're correct, a lot of people
do indeed think of pets as property....even when our beloved Gaspode was
shot, we were told that, unlike with dogs, they could only file the
complaint as "destruction of property", how maddening is that?!

Ann

--

http://www.angelfire.com/ca/bewtifulfreak

JSmith4973
August 26th 03, 03:26 AM
>Furthermore, I would like to see more people refer to the term
>"guardian" rather than "owner". "Ownership" implies that your pet is an
>inanimate object like your DVD player or television. Untill that happens
>we are going to have pile of **** people who do these things to
>defenseless animals because they think of them as property.
>
>As far as I'm concerned, pets/animals are just like childern and should
>be protected as such. You can bet that if this woman had done this to a
>child she would be in jail for child abuse!
>
>I do agree with some of the other posters, drag her ass out into the
>middle of nowhere and let her swim back (NO flotation device)
--------------
Makes a great deal of sense to me. Putting any creature in harm's way is
inexcusable, even when ASPCA and like agencies, which dare to call themselves
'shelters' rather than the anterooms to death that they actually are, euthanize
healthy animals because there are so many. The don't do this in third world
countries, because there are too many people.

Damned hypocrisy makes me nauseous. And this thing with the surfing cat is an
obscenity. Maybe the crazy bitch should plead insanity.

No offense, colleagues, but I have encountered more misfits and screwballs in
this line of work than I have ever found elsewhere. No doubt it is because
cats cannot write letters to editors and Congresspeople.

Why do we attract so many misfits and malcontents?

Beats me. Every once in a while, I get so tired of it. And as for social
workers and adoption agencies... never mind. Better not go there.

Jeanne

Steve G
August 28th 03, 07:02 PM
"bewtifulfreak" > wrote in message >...
> Craig Petersen wrote:
> > I would like to know "who" this woman is so I can file animal abuse
> > charges against her. People this idotic do not deserve to have pets
> > period! Furthermore, I would like to see more people refer to the term
> > "guardian" rather than "owner". "Ownership" implies that your pet is
> > an inanimate object like your DVD player or television.

No it doesn't. From the OED:

'Owner: One who owns or holds something as his own; a proprietor; one
who has the rightful claim or title to a thing (though he may not be
in possession); spec. one who owns a race-horse (...)'

And 'ownership' is defined as 'The fact or state of being an owner;
legal right of possession; property, proprietorship, dominion.'

One may simultaneously be an 'owner' and a 'guardian'; the two are not
mutually exclusive.


> > happens
> > we are going to have pile of **** people who do these things to
> > defenseless animals because they think of them as property.

Any such thoughts are (IMHO) entirely unrelated to the use of the term
'owner'. A '****' person will be just as ****ty if you force them to
somehow avoid using the term 'owner'.


>
> That's a very good point; we are indeed "guardians" not "owners" of our
> pets;

Well I am a guardian and an owner; also a companion, fellow traveller
and more besides.


> we have chosen to look after them,

And they had no choice in the matter. It is correct to say that you
'own' a cat, at least in part because it cannot (at least for indoor
cats) exercise its right to not be 'owned'. It cannot leave without
the owner's say so.

Steve.

bewtifulfreak
August 28th 03, 11:17 PM
Steve G wrote:
>> That's a very good point; we are indeed "guardians" not "owners" of
>> our
>> pets;
>
> Well I am a guardian and an owner; also a companion, fellow traveller
> and more besides.
>
>
>> we have chosen to look after them,
>
> And they had no choice in the matter. It is correct to say that you
> 'own' a cat, at least in part because it cannot (at least for indoor
> cats) exercise its right to not be 'owned'. It cannot leave without
> the owner's say so.

Fair enough. But I think it was a nice reminder that, while we may make the
decision to own the cats without their say so, the fact is, they aren't mere
possesions, but living creatures that deserve respect and responsible care.
Though you're right in that those who feel that way will behave as such no
matter what you call them, and those that don't, won't.

Ann

--

http://www.angelfire.com/ca/bewtifulfreak