Re: Stupid pet (owner?) guardian trick

[Craig Petersen]

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]

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

[BricksInTheWall8]

>As far as I'm concerned, pets/animals are just like childern and should
>be protected as such.

I think that's a pretty unreasonable comment. The life of a child is far more
valuable than the life of any animal. Really, if you ran into a burning house
and you could save either a child or a bunch of cats, which one would you save?

You can love animals and treat your pets like your babies and be willing to pay
thousands for surgery and whatever else their little hearts desire, you can
take a bullet for your cat if you want, that's your business, but you can't
expect all other people to be like that! Animals are NOT children. Children are
more important. The law and popular opinion reflect this, as it should.

[Victor M. Martinez]

BricksInTheWall8 > wrote:
>I think that's a pretty unreasonable comment. The life of a child is far more
>valuable than the life of any animal.

It depends, I wouldn't make a blanket argument like that.

>Really, if you ran into a burning house
>and you could save either a child or a bunch of cats, which one would you save?

If it's my house and it's my friend's child in there and *my* cats, I would
most definitely save my cats first.

>expect all other people to be like that! Animals are NOT children. Children are
>more important. The law and popular opinion reflect this, as it should.

Just because that's how you feel does not make it so.


--
Victor M. Martinez

http://www.che.utexas.edu/~martiv

[Karen Chuplis]

Seems like all of this is way beside the point of whether you should make a
cat surf or not.

Karen

"BricksInTheWall8" > wrote in message
...
> >As far as I'm concerned, pets/animals are just like childern and should
> >be protected as such.
>
> I think that's a pretty unreasonable comment. The life of a child is far
more
> valuable than the life of any animal. Really, if you ran into a burning
house
> and you could save either a child or a bunch of cats, which one would you
save?
>
> You can love animals and treat your pets like your babies and be willing
to pay
> thousands for surgery and whatever else their little hearts desire, you
can
> take a bullet for your cat if you want, that's your business, but you
can't
> expect all other people to be like that! Animals are NOT children.
Children are
> more important. The law and popular opinion reflect this, as it should.
>
>

[bewtifulfreak]

> "BricksInTheWall8" > wrote in message
> ...

Animals are NOT children. Children are more important.
>> The law and popular opinion reflect this, as it should.

Karen Chuplis wrote:
> Seems like all of this is way beside the point of whether you should
> make a cat surf or not.

Absolutely. Besides which, it's one thing to say you'd put your child over
your pet, but if you choose to have an animal, you should make it's welfare
a very high priority, as you have taken responsibility for another life.
Arguing about an extreme hypothetical situation like who to save if you
could only save one is akin to saying the child would come before your
spouse in that situation: maybe so, but you'd most *certainly* try to save
both, wouldn't you?

Ann

--

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

[Sherry]

>>As far as I'm concerned, pets/animals are just like childern and should
>>be protected as such.
>
>I think that's a pretty unreasonable comment. The life of a child is far more
>valuable than the life of any animal. Really, if you ran into a burning house
>and you could save either a child or a bunch of cats, which one would you
>save?
>
>You can love animals and treat your pets like your babies and be willing to
>pay
>thousands for surgery and whatever else their little hearts desire, you can
>take a bullet for your cat if you want, that's your business, but you can't
>expect all other people to be like that! Animals are NOT children. Children
>are
>more important. The law and popular opinion reflect this, as it should.
>
Moot point. The issue was not whether children or cats should come first. The
poster said pets should be protected *AS* children, not above children.

Sherry

[LOL]

"Karen Chuplis" > wrote in message >...
> Seems like all of this is way beside the point of whether you should make a
> cat surf or not.
>
> Karen
>

Sheesh, don't dodge the question, Karen. Which one would you make
surf *first*, the cat or the child? :-P

------
Krista
Who would need stitches if she tried getting Mike on a surfboard

[BricksInTheWall8]

>If it's my house and it's my friend's child in there and *my* cats, I would
>most definitely save my cats first.

Have you mentioned this to your friend?

I can't believe you would save cats before you would save a human child. That
blows my mind. But, as long as you don't actually have any kids, knock yourself
out. To each his own, I guess.

[Karen Chuplis]

in article , BricksInTheWall8 at
wrote on 8/27/03 10:26 PM:

>> If it's my house and it's my friend's child in there and *my* cats, I would
>> most definitely save my cats first.
>
> Have you mentioned this to your friend?
>
> I can't believe you would save cats before you would save a human child. That
> blows my mind. But, as long as you don't actually have any kids, knock
> yourself
> out. To each his own, I guess.
>
>
>
>
personally, I think we *all* would save whichever was possible to save. I
really doubt you have time to think in such situations, but just do your
best. Point is moot.

Karen

[Victor M. Martinez]

BricksInTheWall8 > wrote:
>Have you mentioned this to your friend?

No, but why sould I? Other people's kids are not my responsibility.

>I can't believe you would save cats before you would save a human child. That

Believe it honey.

>blows my mind. But, as long as you don't actually have any kids, knock yourself
>out. To each his own, I guess.

Exactly.

--
Victor M. Martinez

http://www.che.utexas.edu/~martiv

[Dan and Nancy Mahoney]

BricksInTheWall8 wrote:
>>If it's my house and it's my friend's child in there and *my* cats, I would
>>most definitely save my cats first.
>
>
> Have you mentioned this to your friend?
>
> I can't believe you would save cats before you would save a human child. That
> blows my mind. But, as long as you don't actually have any kids, knock yourself
> out. To each his own, I guess.

What's unusual about that? If a friend comes visiting with a little kid
and some sort of emergency arises, that friend can look after her own
kid. I'm going to take care of my kitties.

Dan

[Steve G]

"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]

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