Stupid pet (owner?) guardian trick

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

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

"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.

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