What Price For Kitty?

On 17 Feb 2005 13:19:43 -0800, "-L." wrote:


Childless means you don't have any whether or not you ever want any.



Surely you aren't implying that ChildFREE is pro-choice and ChildLESS
is pro-life (or more to the point, ANTI-choice)?

--
Janet B
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com

"Mary" wrote in message
om...

"Monique Y. Mudama" wrote in message
...
On 2005-02-15, Mary penned:

Did I say I was referring to you? Stop being intellectually sloppy, Mo.


I'll have you know I'm sloppy in every aspect of my life, not just my
intellect! So there!

--

Hee. Honestly, "civility" is fine. I prefer honest discourse. The
free exchange of information.

Why would you think that one precludes the other? Do you find it impossible
to be honest and freely exchange information in a civil manner???!

If you are *really* interested in exchanging information, and having other
people actually process what you are saying, then you'd best do it in a
civil manner. As soon as someone starts being rude, obnoxious, beligerent
and profane they instantly lose their audience (except for those voyuers who
aren't interested in the argument and just want to watch the sideshow, or
the masochists who beg, "hurt me, hurt me"!).

Hugs,

CatNipped

You can call me an insensitive,
thick-headed nitwit, a nasty, petty, potty-mouthed bitch
every single day of the week for the rest of your life in here--
or elsewhere in Usenet--and I will never, ever ask you to
stop. If you think it, say it. How many "places" are there left
on earth where one can just freely way what one thinks?

Karen and the other namby-pamby people are looking for
their own "community" here. That is their mistake. This is
not Mr. Rogers Neighborhood. This is Usenet. You can
have anything you want--EXCEPT CONTROL OVER
OTHERS. But you know that, Mo. You don't mind
if I call you Mo, do you? I think it's awful cute.

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.

--
rosie

KellyH wrote:
"Ashley" wrote in message
...
But this is where it makes even less sense to me. I would actually
prefer
a pure black cat above any other, if everything else was equal. To
me,
pure black cats are things of quite stunning beauty. I don't get
that
other people don't feel the same way!


Every once in a while I get someone who comes in who just loves black
cats
and is drawn to them. Maybe it's a US thing.
--

Um...that would be me. It's true: Once you go black, you never go
back...LOL!

-L.
(Don't spew your Pepsi, Kelly!)

"Ashley" wrote in message
...
Every once in a while I get someone who comes in who just loves black
cats and is drawn to them. Maybe it's a US thing.

I'm not in the US.

I meant "a US thing" to NOT like black cats, as we had those witch trials
and all. I saw that you were in NZ.
--
-Kelly
kelly at farringtons dot net
"Wake up, and smell the cat food" -TMBG

"-L." wrote in message
oups.com...
Um...that would be me. It's true: Once you go black, you never go
back...LOL!

-L.
(Don't spew your Pepsi, Kelly!)

No comment from the Peanut Gallery!
--
-Kelly
kelly at farringtons dot net
"Wake up, and smell the cat food" -TMBG

" rosie readandpost" wrote in message
...
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.

--
rosie

I don't know which post you were replying to, but... I'll hazard a guess as
to the intent of the previous (whoever it was) poster & then how you
*may*'ve read the thread (hazarding a guess here, too, based on your reply)
to the point you did.

I sincerely doubt if anyone here - at least of long-time posters, whose
posts I'm familiar with - is against euthanasia. When it's appropriate.

I have a problem with a person saying, "Hey, this cat (or any pet) is worth
"x" amount of money & if the treatment exceeds that, skip it, it's PTS
time."

However, if the treatment is pricey, and the prognosis is crummy, then IMO
euthanasia makes more sense. Not solely based on the financial aspect of the
deal, but why put a pet through more trauma, only to have a lousy outcome
anyway? A lot of factors need to be taken into account, to come up w/ the
big-time treatment Vs. euthanasia decision.

Cathy

On 2005-02-17, Dom penned:

I think that in the absence of an objective measure of an influencing state
such as the idea of 'worth', one is obligated to assume neutrality. By this
I mean that if you don't know, you should always take the high road. For
instance...I don't know if rats and cats are really the same so far as their
general 'worth' to the universe. I 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. How can I dare to call myself a
moral person then? By assuming they are worth the same as a creature I
adore, I can reasonably hope that I won't make any mistakes of such a dire
nature. Another example. We know that humans feel pain. We know that cats
will show an elevated heart rate and stress indications when 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...are we not duty bound to
assume that they are capable and take steps to ensure they do not suffer?
If we are right and they can feel pain, we know we've done our best to help
by using pain meds. If we're wrong and they can't...what did we lose?

This is a very interesting philosophical position. But as long as we're
appealing to an unknown and unknowable "worth" value (presumably assigned by
some being with higher powers than ourselves), we could also imagine that cats
are infinitely more worthy than any other being, or that rats are far
superior, or ...

Still, as a way for you personally to determine what you believe is right, I
think it's as good as it gets.

As I recall, the whole "animals can't feel pain" argument stemmed from
the "animals don't have a soul" and "animals don't have emotions" camps. The
argument went something like, "Sure, animals have exactly the same
physiological responses to certain stimuli that we would have if we were in
pain, but because they can't feel emotions they're clearly not in pain,
they're just having a physiological response." To me, that whole line of
reasoning is a patent rationalization for horrific practices. Pain *is* a
physiological 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. I'm honestly not trying to browbeat you
here...what good would that do? I'm just trying to show that the reasoning
behind a choice doesn't matter. If I'm only taking care of my rats based on
a fear of doing something 'morally wrong' on a universal scale if they
should turn out to be little gods in rodent suits, that's a profoundly
selfish line of reasoning. But the rats don't give a damn if I'm selfish or
not.

By the same token, though, the rats (probably) don't know that you gave one of
them better treatment than the other, or that you put more effort into your
cat than you did them. All that matters to them is that they are alive and
pain-free. For that matter, if they're in pain, they don't care if it's
because there's no treatment available or because you can't afford it or
because you'd rather buy a mercedes. And they almost certainly don't blame
you for their pain; it's just there.

For the record...any choice is a selfish one and being that we don't know
which is right, I really can't judge anyone else for theirs. But judgment
is part of being human too and can't really be helped, which is why I don't
waste time trying to avoid it.

All we can really do is muddle onward, doing the best we can. But I don't
really believe "we don't know which is right," because I don't think there's
some cosmic measuring stick out there. I do the best I can, not because I
think I'll avoid hellfire and damnation in the afterlife but because I
couldn't live with myself if I did otherwise, which, yes, is a selfish
position.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
(...)
This is a very interesting philosophical position. But as long as
we're
appealing to an unknown and unknowable "worth" value (presumably
assigned by
some being with higher powers than ourselves)

You mean like Robert Pirsig...?

(...)

As I recall, the whole "animals can't feel pain" argument stemmed
from
the "animals don't have a soul" and "animals don't have emotions"
camps. The
argument went something like, "Sure, animals have exactly the same
physiological responses to certain stimuli that we would have if we
were in
pain, but because they can't feel emotions they're clearly not in
pain,
they're just having a physiological response." To me, that whole
line of
reasoning is a patent rationalization for horrific practices. Pain
*is* a
physiological response.

Not to mention that animal models of pain are ubiquitous - researchers
hurt animals (rats, mostly) so that we can better understand pain in
humans. Wouldn't be a whole lot of good if animals didn't feel pain!
Now, what 'pain' means to the animal or human is a whole other topic,
albeit one with no answer...

(...)

By the same token, though, the rats (probably) don't know that you
gave one of
them better treatment than the other, or that you put more effort
into your
cat than you did them. All that matters to them is that they are
alive and
pain-free. For that matter, if they're in pain, they don't care if
it's
because there's no treatment available or because you can't afford it
or
because you'd rather buy a mercedes. And they almost certainly don't
blame
you for their pain; it's just there.

Although that the animals lack the knowledge doesn't exonerate the
person who chooses to do little or nothing to heal them, I think.

Steve.

"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.