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?

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

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.

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

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.

"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

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

"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

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.

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