How can you love some cats, but not all?

"ceb" wrote in message
...
"KellyH" wrote in news:3aj326F6buvc0U1
@individual.net:

I
think some of it was baiting me to get me mad, though.


Why do people do that? It always seems so hostile and disrespectful to me.


I think they are frustrated and need to vent their own anger in
some way. Passive aggression, maybe? Anyway, it can be dangerous.
There are far too many human powderkegs out here. It is *always*
best not to screw with people. We just do not know what they are
capable of. Some of the folks who like to "push buttons" find out
soon enough.

"KellyH" wrote in message
...
"Steve G" wrote
Really? Do you not care for your cats more than - say - my cats?

I may love the cat species, but I value my own cats far more than any
unknown mogs out there. I suspect that most people are similar in this
regard.

Steve.


I would grieve for my cats much longer and more intensely than I would
your
cats. Doesn't mean I think your cats are less worthy or value their life
any less. I wasn't saying "how can you love some cats more than others?".
I guess I should have phrased it "how can you care about some cats but not
others?". I'm such a softie that I do tear up at every death annoucement
on
here.
--

I'm with you, kid. And I do not feel sick cats are less worthy of
being cared for and loved and saved than healthy cats. I disagree
with Lyn--yet again--100 per cent. They are all equally worthy.
When we choose the healthy over the sick to save it is for our
own convenience--not because the healthy are more "worthy."
The whole concept--much like "how much would you spend to
save your cat's life" is sick, sick, sick.

"-L." wrote in message
ups.com...

That being said, irradicating ferals is just plain stupid. Shooting
them is even more stupid.

Depends on how much you value your ecosystem really. All our wildlife in New
Zealand evolved without *any* major land-based predators, so most of it has
no defence at all against cats, rats, stoats, weasels etc, which have
already driven lots of birds, insects and reptiles to extinction. As a
result, any feral cat found in New Zealand's countryside areas will be
shot - and I have no problem with that. I wish it weren't that way and that
cats had evolved in this land and this land had adapted to them - but they
didn't and it hasn't. If we didn't shoot them the results would be
disastrous.

I don't known what the comparative situation is like in the States so can't
comment on it.

KellyH wrote:
(...)

I would grieve for my cats much longer and more intensely than I
would your
cats. Doesn't mean I think your cats are less worthy or value their
life
any less.

Well, of course it does! How else can we measure the value, but through
our emotional response? That you 'intellectually' value my cats as much
as yours is a poor second fiddle.

I wasn't saying "how can you love some cats more than others?".
I guess I should have phrased it "how can you care about some cats
but not
others?".

It's not possible to meaningfully care about all other (cats, humans,
whatever), at least not to the same degree as we care for our own. If
we really did care for all others as our own, we would not be able to
function sucessfully in the world.

Now, each cat / human / marmoset has the potential to be valued by us
as we value our own, but that's not quite the same thing as your OP
s contentions.

Steve.

"Ashley" wrote in message
...

"-L." wrote in message
ups.com...

That being said, irradicating ferals is just plain stupid. Shooting
them is even more stupid.

Depends on how much you value your ecosystem really. All our wildlife in
New
Zealand evolved without *any* major land-based predators, so most of it
has
no defence at all against cats, rats, stoats, weasels etc, which have
already driven lots of birds, insects and reptiles to extinction. As a
result, any feral cat found in New Zealand's countryside areas will be
shot - and I have no problem with that. I wish it weren't that way and
that
cats had evolved in this land and this land had adapted to them - but they
didn't and it hasn't. If we didn't shoot them the results would be
disastrous.

I don't known what the comparative situation is like in the States so
can't
comment on it.



Well, the cats there certainly do have predators and they are *you.*
We forget that people are animals too as as such as much a part of
the natural system as any other animal.

In article ,
enlightened us with...

You are completely right. I've had this internal struggle myself. I love
animals, but I do eat them and wear them (not fur, the occasional leather).
I drew my line for eating at poultry and fish, but recently started eating
red meat again, damn pregnancy cravings! Plus, I'm anemic now. I know, I
could load up on the spinach, what a hypocrite I am. I even ate bacon the
other day, and I haven't eaten pig for a looong time.
I felt bad getting a car with leather interior, but I wanted the options
that went with that package.
I'm sure if I had to kill my own food, I'd be a vegetarian. I've tried to
be a vegetarian, but can't stick with it. I really do admire hard-core
vegans.


Honestly, if I had a farm and raised animals myself, I'd feel *less* guilty
about eating them. I'd know they at least had a good and natural life prior
to a humane slaughter.

And I won't wear the skin of an animal that wasn't used as food. If you're
going to kill it, you might as well use the whole thing. But to farm them
just for fur or to hunt and kill non-prey animals for fur (i.e. foxes,
leopard) is abhorrent to me. I will wear lambskin or leather because I will
eat lamb and cow.

My prime beef (pardon the pun) with eating animals is knowing how common it
is for them to live horrid lives punctuated by a horrible death. I do my best
to buy only free-range prey, but we all go out to eat every now and then (I
try to stick with chicken and not think about overcrowding and the other
nasty things they do to the poor birds). I fully support any legislation that
helps end inhumane practices and I think we as a culture don't do enough to
ensure decent lives for our prey animals. Sure, chickens aren't cute and
cuddly, but I don't think that justifies some of the terrible things I've
heard are done to them.
I wish it were easier to find out what the laws really are, what companies
really do, who to contact to bitch about it, and so on. I wouldn't consider
myself a big animal rights person, but I am into animal welfare. There just
isn't any justification to torture one's food for weeks, months, or even
years before one eats it.

/ thinks the PETA nuts have given animal welfare a very bad name

--
--
~kaeli~
Why do they sterilize the needles for lethal injections?
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

In article ,
enlightened us with...

I'm with you, kid. And I do not feel sick cats are less worthy of
being cared for and loved and saved than healthy cats.

I don't think it's about worth, but about pragmatism.
I'd LOVE to save them all. But, unfortunately, I have only so much money. As
do you. As does a shelter. A shelter wants to rehome as many cats as they can
with the available funds. If they can save 3 cats or save 1 cat, they choose
to save 3.

You have a big heart. Others might not have half the heart you do, but they
have enough heart to adopt a healthy cat. Let's applaud them for at least
adopting at all when kittens can be gotten nearly free in the paper.

Overwhelmingly, sick cats are not adopted and healthy ones are. It sucks. It
sucks a lot. But shelters have to do something similar to triage (sp?) in
war. Because it *is* a war of sorts -- a war against the unfeeling humans who
dump their cats. A war against overpopulation and sickness. The ones who will
take a lot of time, money, and effort to save are taking away resources from
the ones who might get adopted much faster. They can spend $500 trying to
care for one sick cat in a heartbeat. That $500 can buy food, neutering, and
vaccinations for at least 3 healthy, adoptable cats.

Does it suck large green donkey balls that people don't even want to consider
adopting an FLV+ or FIV+ cat? Absolutely. But that doesn't change the fact
that most people wouldn't consider it (or would like to, but can't, due to
other cats in the home). In the meantime, the cat sits in the shelter,
costing them money, while other cats might have been able to be in his spot
and get adopted.

It's a nasty choice to have to be made. But it does have to be made. I for
one am glad I don't have to make it.

--
--
~kaeli~
Those who get too big for their britches will be exposed in
the end.
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

KellyH wrote:

Probably every colony has a couple cats that won't go in the trap.
But, I
think it's better than them not being managed, not having someone
look out
for their well-being, and none of the cats being TNR'ed.

i think they need to be TNR's. I just don't necessarily think they
need to be fed. Feeding makes it much easier for them to thrive and
breed. if they aren't fed, the population is controlled natually -
more selective pressure.


I have mixed feelings on releasing FIV and FeLV cats. Some TNR
groups don't
test, others do. I have more issues with releasing a FeLV cat than
FIV.
FeLV is more easily spread, FIV has to be a deep bite wound or
intercourse,
which if the cat is s/n, they won't be doing anyway.

I agree with your sentiments here. The one problem I have with
releasing FeLV and FIV cats is the possibility of them spreading
disease to non-feral cats - whether they be indoor/outdoor or just an
indoor cat that escaped accidently.

-L.

Ashley wrote:

I don't known what the comparative situation is like in the States so
can't
comment on it.

If one is shooting a "feral" in the US it is more likely that they are
shooting a cat that belongs to someone. Ferals, in general, don't
stick around long enough to be a target.

-L.

"kaeli" wrote in message
...
In article ,
enlightened us with...

I'm with you, kid. And I do not feel sick cats are less worthy of
being cared for and loved and saved than healthy cats.

I don't think it's about worth, but about pragmatism.

That is a different matter--different from what was being discussed here.

I'd LOVE to save them all. But, unfortunately, I have only so much money.
As
do you. As does a shelter. A shelter wants to rehome as many cats as they
can
with the available funds. If they can save 3 cats or save 1 cat, they
choose
to save 3.

You have a big heart. Others might not have half the heart you do, but
they
have enough heart to adopt a healthy cat. Let's applaud them for at least
adopting at all when kittens can be gotten nearly free in the paper.

I was reacting mostly to this, posted by Lynn:

I also don't have any problem euthanizing FeLV and
(truly) FIV positive cats when they cannot be rehomed. Completely
healthy cats die daily for lack of homes. So in that regard, yes, I
believe some cats are more "worthy" than others.

We may choose to save the healthiest ones, but it is NOT as Lyn
says, because the sick ones are not "worthy" of saving. I might
save the healthiest ones too, but as I was putting the others to
death I would know in my heart that they were dying as a result
of the lack of resources. Is a sick human less worthy of life than
a healthy one? They are all worthy. Maybe it is just
a matter of semantics but it bothered me.



Overwhelmingly, sick cats are not adopted and healthy ones are. It sucks.
It
sucks a lot. But shelters have to do something similar to triage (sp?) in
war. Because it *is* a war of sorts -- a war against the unfeeling humans
who
dump their cats. A war against overpopulation and sickness. The ones who
will
take a lot of time, money, and effort to save are taking away resources
from
the ones who might get adopted much faster. They can spend $500 trying to
care for one sick cat in a heartbeat. That $500 can buy food, neutering,
and
vaccinations for at least 3 healthy, adoptable cats.

I do understand this, and that given limited resources, choices have to
be made. But it does not follow that the animals put to death were not
"worthy" of life.


Does it suck large green donkey balls that people don't even want to
consider
adopting an FLV+ or FIV+ cat? Absolutely. But that doesn't change the fact
that most people wouldn't consider it (or would like to, but can't, due to
other cats in the home). In the meantime, the cat sits in the shelter,
costing them money, while other cats might have been able to be in his
spot
and get adopted.

It's a nasty choice to have to be made. But it does have to be made. I for
one am glad I don't have to make it.

Me too.