What Price For Kitty?

"Cathy Friedmann" wrote in message
...

"Meghan Noecker" wrote in message
...
On 16 Feb 2005 11:57:48 -0800, "-L." wrote:


And if you consider yourself
pro-choice as most childfree do

Not sure about that. I am pro-life and childfree.

Of course, I think the "pro-choice" title is rather stupid.

Other than saying that "pro-choice" as a label makes sense to me, I'm
going
to leave this one alone... a HOT potato.


I am also leaving it alone. I think that is a personal thing, as well as
a hot potato.

On Thu 17 Feb 2005 04:25:48p, rosie readandpost wrote in
rec.pets.cats.health+behav
):

i'm new here, but i want to throw in my two cents:

we had our family dog euthanized six months
ago....................that surely does NOT mean that we didn't
love her, but in fact it means we DID love her and worried about
her quality of life, before we worried about ourselves and our
pain. please do not paint us all as heartless.


There is always a time when it is necessary. I wish it was an option
for humans in cases where there is no hope and only suffering and
waiting.

--
Cheryl

Dom wrote:
(...)

If your rats are sleeping in their own ****, I'd have to question
your
cage set up. Rats, like most critters, generally desire to be clean.
Most animals don't really like hanging out in their own waste.

Not so. Rats mark their territory extensively (with dribbles of ****,
natch), and they especially like to mark things they like, and as all
sensible creatures, they really like their bed. They also tend to ****
on their human, if they like him and feel secure.

Now, they don't use their nest as a toilet, but they will accumulate
marking **** quite rapidly. In a few days, the nest is certainly a tad
damp and smelly. Especially when the rats choose to include some food
in their nest, as they often do.

There's a nice summmary of marking behaviour he
http://www.ratbehavior.org/UrineMarking.htm

Some gems:

"There are a number of hypotheses about the function of habitat
labeling: urine marking (1) may create and maintain an optimum odor
field, (2) may be a response to novelty that wanes with time, (3) may
constitute an index of spatial knowledge, and (4) may increase the
confidence of resident rats while decreasing that of intruders. These
hypotheses need not be mutually exclusive."

"Rats deposit attractive cues on and around foods that they like. Young
rats find these marks attractive, and prefer to feed at sites marked by
other rats"

Basically, if your rats do *not* **** their bed, there's something
wrong...


Now,
there are expectations to that rule, of course, so maybe you just got
a
really nasty rat.

Nope, normal rats. Better get yours checked out though. Or breed these
new non-****y rats!

(...)
don't know if cats and people are worth the same either. Being that
I
don't know and that assuming they are worth less on some imaginary
scale would make it easier to justify not obtaining medical care,
don't
I have the obligation to assume instead that they are worth exactly
the
same? If I take the low road and assume that my personal reaction to
them is symbolic of some deeper universal truth and I'm incorrect,
I've
just basically murdered a creature who's inherent worth was the same
as
my cats or perhaps myself.

There are no obligations, other than those you impose on yourself.
Plus, I think you will hit inconstency pretty quickly if you attempt to
arbitrarily assign equal 'worth' all all creatures - at least once you
start expanding the worth even slightly beyond those in your immediate
care.

(...)
exposed to sensations a human would rate painful. But pain is a
highly
subjective thing. We can't prove that what a cat is feeling when it
breaks its leg is actually pain. Years ago many people will have
firmly believed it was not possible for that cat to feel pain. But
in
the absence of that proof...and indeed pain is something impossible
to
prove...

Based on physiology and brain structure, this question does have an
answer - animals feel something that can be treated as pain. Indeed, as
I note elsewhere, animal models are ubiquitous in human pain research.
We do not know the internal 'meaning' of pain, but it is unquestionable
that the cat's physiology looks very similar to our cf. pain response.

(...)

Yes, it is a typical human position. It is normal for humans to save
those they know before strangers. It is also normal to extend more
effort toward those you feel strongly bonded to. But your rats won't
care if your lack of care for them is typical or not. All they care
about is if they get the help they need when they need it.

Well, when they need help they will neither know what is happening, nor
that the human can save them. This does not excuse not treating them,
but it does mean that the only moral angst resides in the human's head.
The rat will not hate you for not treating it to the Nth degree. Plus,
I think there is a risk that if you extend your duty of care massively
beyond your own 'limits of attachment', then you risk becoming
resentful of your pet. Again, this is not an excuse for quitting
treatment, but it can be a reality.

Steve.

Phil P. wrote:
(...)
cats. Thus, I don't think this group suits your purposes. In
fact. you're cluttering the newsgroup with hypothetical
questions and issues while other people are seeking help
with *real* issues which isn't fair to them.

Yes, if only there was some clue as to what a thread is about, then
people could ignore things they are not interested in.

Oh.

Wait.

What's this?

'What price for Kitty?'

Hm, maybe that's a clue.


Here's the URL for alt.cats: alt.cats. Have a good time.

For someone who's not interested in this thread, you've spend a lot of
effort posting in it.

Steve.

Phil P. wrote:
(...)
cats. Thus, I don't think this group suits your purposes. In
fact. you're cluttering the newsgroup with hypothetical
questions and issues while other people are seeking help
with *real* issues which isn't fair to them.

Yes, if only there was some clue as to what a thread is about,
then people could ignore things they are not interested in.

Oh.

Wait.

What's this?

'What price for Kitty?'

Hm, maybe that's a clue.


Here's the URL for alt.cats: alt.cats. Have a good time.

Missed this post. This is suspiciously close to trying to censor
how and where someone posts. Hmmm.... oh irony of ironies.

--
Cheryl

Cheryl wrote:
Phil P. wrote:
(...)
cats. Thus, I don't think this group suits your purposes. In
fact. you're cluttering the newsgroup with hypothetical
questions and issues while other people are seeking help
with *real* issues which isn't fair to them.

Yes, if only there was some clue as to what a thread is about,
then people could ignore things they are not interested in.

(...)

Missed this post. This is suspiciously close to trying to censor
how and where someone posts. Hmmm.... oh irony of ironies.

Um, do you mean me or Phil?

Steve.

"Mary" wrote in message
news:1108683099.d890d97eda0ba18fc3af147a10c24edb@t eranews...

"CatNipped" wrote in message
...
"Mary" wrote in message
. com...

"KellyH" wrote in message
...
I wrote:
How true. I actually like to debate, and enjoy threads that get
long
and
heated, while others beg for people to stop disagreeing.



L wrote:
Gee, you wouldn't be referencing any other ng would you?

Nooo... not me It happens on every ng, though.


Lynnie is talking about the sickly saccharine rec.pets.cats.anecdotes,
only surpassed in its creepy party-line sweetness by the very icky
rec.pets.cats.community where they post in baby tale. *Gag* That
is about her speed, as she can dish it out but she just can't take it.

"Profanity is the crutch of a conversational cripple." ~ Jay Alexander

I've seen people in rpca disagree with one another - even do so
vehemently.
The fact that they can do so without rancor, vileness, or profanity is a
testament to their intelligence, sophistication, tolerance, and
forebearance.

I've never, *EVER* seen another newsgroup where a very long political
disagreement was carried on without a single, solitary flame, no
profanity
was used, and Hitler's name was never mentioned. Everyone stuck to the
issue at hand and attacked the arguments while respecting the arguers!

Go ahead and call rpca sickly saccharine, just call us long distance
please!

The ability to hold civil converse is *never* a liability!

Hugs,

CatNipped


I will consider this, but only because of the Hugs.

LOL! Hugs are *always* freely given - there isn't enough hugs in the world
and the world really needs them right now!

Hugs,

CatNipped

On Thu 17 Feb 2005 07:14:41p, Steve G wrote in
rec.pets.cats.health+behav (news:1108685681.729028.123130
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com):


Cheryl wrote:
Phil P. wrote:
(...)
cats. Thus, I don't think this group suits your purposes. In
fact. you're cluttering the newsgroup with hypothetical
questions and issues while other people are seeking help
with *real* issues which isn't fair to them.

Yes, if only there was some clue as to what a thread is about,
then people could ignore things they are not interested in.

(...)

Missed this post. This is suspiciously close to trying to censor
how and where someone posts. Hmmm.... oh irony of ironies.

Um, do you mean me or Phil?

Steve.



Phil. I snipped your name in the attributes.

--
Cheryl

"CatNipped" wrote in message
...
"Mary" wrote in message
news:1108683099.d890d97eda0ba18fc3af147a10c24edb@t eranews...

"CatNipped" wrote in message
...
"Mary" wrote in message
. com...

"KellyH" wrote in message
...
I wrote:
How true. I actually like to debate, and enjoy threads that get
long
and
heated, while others beg for people to stop disagreeing.



L wrote:
Gee, you wouldn't be referencing any other ng would you?

Nooo... not me It happens on every ng, though.


Lynnie is talking about the sickly saccharine
rec.pets.cats.anecdotes,
only surpassed in its creepy party-line sweetness by the very icky
rec.pets.cats.community where they post in baby tale. *Gag* That
is about her speed, as she can dish it out but she just can't take
it.

"Profanity is the crutch of a conversational cripple." ~ Jay Alexander

I've seen people in rpca disagree with one another - even do so
vehemently.
The fact that they can do so without rancor, vileness, or profanity is
a
testament to their intelligence, sophistication, tolerance, and
forebearance.

I've never, *EVER* seen another newsgroup where a very long political
disagreement was carried on without a single, solitary flame, no
profanity
was used, and Hitler's name was never mentioned. Everyone stuck to
the
issue at hand and attacked the arguments while respecting the arguers!

Go ahead and call rpca sickly saccharine, just call us long distance
please!

The ability to hold civil converse is *never* a liability!

Hugs,

CatNipped


I will consider this, but only because of the Hugs.

LOL! Hugs are *always* freely given - there isn't enough hugs in the
world
and the world really needs them right now!

Hugs,


I'm with you there! So, how are the kitties?

"Cheryl" wrote in message
...

Missed this post. This is suspiciously close to trying to censor
how and where someone posts.

Not at all. Since she said she participates in newsgroups for entertainment
purposes and likes debates, I simply suggested she try alt.cats - it might
suit her purposes better.

My statement makes much more sense when its not taken out context. Here it
is in its entirety

"You stated that you participate in this newsgroup for entertainment and
that
you enjoy debates. Perhaps you are better suited for and would enjoying
entertaining yourself in alt.cats - they just love debates so much they'll
even debate the color of ****. Most of the people who participate in this
group, however, do so to try to help their cats and help others help their
cats. Thus, I don't think this group suits your purposes. In fact. you're
cluttering the newsgroup with hypothetical questions and issues while other
people are seeking help with *real* issues which isn't fair to them."

See? No censorship - just a suggestion.

Phil