If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Stupid pet (owner?) guardian trick
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? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stupid pet (owner?) guardian trick | Craig Petersen | Cat anecdotes | 13 | August 28th 03 11:17 PM |
Stupid pet owner trick | LeeAnne | Cat anecdotes | 20 | August 24th 03 08:51 PM |
Stupid pet owner trick | polonca12000 | Cat community | 6 | August 22nd 03 01:23 AM |
Stupid pet owner trick | LeeAnne | Cat community | 6 | August 21st 03 05:41 PM |