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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stupid pet owner trick | LeeAnne | Cat anecdotes | 20 | August 24th 03 08:51 PM |