Bob Brenchley. wrote in message . ..
On 06 Jan 2004 07:26:32 GMT, (Luvskats00) wrote:

When I was 17 I lived in a suburban area..my then 5 year old cat was an indoor
outdoor cat. He was hit by a car and needed surgery. He recovered,
thankfully. I never allowed him out again...and he never got hit by a car
again!

Do you get pleasure from systematically ill-treating your cat?

That's OK. Because pets exist to give their owners pleasure,
enjoyment, self-gratification. It's not important if the cat is
suffering or is being deprived, as long as it's owner feels he/she is
doing the right thing for the cat. The welfare of the human is
infinitely more important than the welfare of the animal. That's how
it works whether you like it or not.

That's OK. Because pets exist to give their owners pleasure,
enjoyment, self-gratification. It's not important if the cat is
suffering or is being deprived, as long as it's owner feels he/she is
doing the right thing for the cat. The welfare of the human is
infinitely more important than the welfare of the animal. That's how
it works whether you like it or not.


Yes, I agree, pets exist to give their owners pleasure. Surely, that is why I
have two cats. The latter part of your analysis is flawed. It does matter, to
any decent caring humane pet owner what his pet is feeling. The welfare of the
animal is of paramount importance; I took a huge responsibility when I decided
to imprison two cats in my home. I think I have met that responsibility with
flying colors. They will live a much richer and healthier life with me as a
responsible owner than if I were some sort of a demented naturalist who simply
opened the door for his pet to come and go as he pleased.

That's OK. Because pets exist to give their owners pleasure,
enjoyment, self-gratification. It's not important if the cat is
suffering or is being deprived, as long as it's owner feels he/she is
doing the right thing for the cat. The welfare of the human is
infinitely more important than the welfare of the animal. That's how
it works whether you like it or not.


Yes, I agree, pets exist to give their owners pleasure. Surely, that is why I
have two cats. The latter part of your analysis is flawed. It does matter, to
any decent caring humane pet owner what his pet is feeling. The welfare of the
animal is of paramount importance; I took a huge responsibility when I decided
to imprison two cats in my home. I think I have met that responsibility with
flying colors. They will live a much richer and healthier life with me as a
responsible owner than if I were some sort of a demented naturalist who simply
opened the door for his pet to come and go as he pleased.

On 6 Jan 2004 14:44:36 -0800, (Ray Ban) wrote:

Bob Brenchley. wrote in message . ..
On 06 Jan 2004 07:26:32 GMT, (Luvskats00) wrote:

When I was 17 I lived in a suburban area..my then 5 year old cat was an indoor
outdoor cat. He was hit by a car and needed surgery. He recovered,
thankfully. I never allowed him out again...and he never got hit by a car
again!

Do you get pleasure from systematically ill-treating your cat?

That's OK. Because pets exist to give their owners pleasure,
enjoyment, self-gratification.

Not if it involves systematic cruelty.

It's not important if the cat is
suffering or is being deprived, as long as it's owner feels he/she is
doing the right thing for the cat. The welfare of the human is
infinitely more important than the welfare of the animal. That's how
it works whether you like it or not.

I'm glad to say that is NOT how it works.

--
Bob.

I think, therefore, I am... not related to you.

On 6 Jan 2004 14:44:36 -0800, (Ray Ban) wrote:

Bob Brenchley. wrote in message . ..
On 06 Jan 2004 07:26:32 GMT, (Luvskats00) wrote:

When I was 17 I lived in a suburban area..my then 5 year old cat was an indoor
outdoor cat. He was hit by a car and needed surgery. He recovered,
thankfully. I never allowed him out again...and he never got hit by a car
again!

Do you get pleasure from systematically ill-treating your cat?

That's OK. Because pets exist to give their owners pleasure,
enjoyment, self-gratification.

Not if it involves systematic cruelty.

It's not important if the cat is
suffering or is being deprived, as long as it's owner feels he/she is
doing the right thing for the cat. The welfare of the human is
infinitely more important than the welfare of the animal. That's how
it works whether you like it or not.

I'm glad to say that is NOT how it works.

--
Bob.

I think, therefore, I am... not related to you.

On 06 Jan 2004 23:50:28 GMT, (GovtLawyer) wrote:

That's OK. Because pets exist to give their owners pleasure,
enjoyment, self-gratification. It's not important if the cat is
suffering or is being deprived, as long as it's owner feels he/she is
doing the right thing for the cat. The welfare of the human is
infinitely more important than the welfare of the animal. That's how
it works whether you like it or not.


Yes, I agree, pets exist to give their owners pleasure. Surely, that is why I
have two cats. The latter part of your analysis is flawed. It does matter, to
any decent caring humane pet owner what his pet is feeling. The welfare of the
animal is of paramount importance; I took a huge responsibility when I decided
to imprison two cats in my home. I think I have met that responsibility with
flying colors.

You failed - dismally - because you refused to look at the basic needs
of the cats. By ignoring their basic needs you have become an abuser.

They will live a much richer and healthier life with me as a
responsible owner than if I were some sort of a demented naturalist who simply
opened the door for his pet to come and go as he pleased.

You are either very deluded or very sick. I vote for sick.

--
Bob.

You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full
of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the
clue mating dance.

On 06 Jan 2004 23:50:28 GMT, (GovtLawyer) wrote:

That's OK. Because pets exist to give their owners pleasure,
enjoyment, self-gratification. It's not important if the cat is
suffering or is being deprived, as long as it's owner feels he/she is
doing the right thing for the cat. The welfare of the human is
infinitely more important than the welfare of the animal. That's how
it works whether you like it or not.


Yes, I agree, pets exist to give their owners pleasure. Surely, that is why I
have two cats. The latter part of your analysis is flawed. It does matter, to
any decent caring humane pet owner what his pet is feeling. The welfare of the
animal is of paramount importance; I took a huge responsibility when I decided
to imprison two cats in my home. I think I have met that responsibility with
flying colors.

You failed - dismally - because you refused to look at the basic needs
of the cats. By ignoring their basic needs you have become an abuser.

They will live a much richer and healthier life with me as a
responsible owner than if I were some sort of a demented naturalist who simply
opened the door for his pet to come and go as he pleased.

You are either very deluded or very sick. I vote for sick.

--
Bob.

You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full
of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the
clue mating dance.

Obviously, you didn't consult your pets whether they want to remain
purely indoor pets. You made the decision unilaterally. So, I argue
that you don't really care that they might suffer (mentally) as long
as you satisfy what you think is right, i.e., that they remain
indoors. You can be responsible and still let them outdoors by putting
them on a leash, in a backyard, if you have one, under supervision,
etc.


No, I didn't consult with them. I took a look at them in a cage in a section
set up in a local PetCo for adopting cats. I made an intelligent guess that
they would probably prefer to have the run of my small aprtment then staying in
the cage.

As far as the outdoor thing, I live in the city. I have a problem with people
who let their cats roam around in the alleys and gardens in the middle of the
blocks and between the rears of apartments.

If I didn't make it clear, I am sorry. Of course, anyone who has a backyard
and wishes to tether a cat to a long leash in the backyard, would not be
considered an irresponsible owner in my opinion. I object to allowing a pet to
roam free where the owner loses contact and control over the pet.