Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh, so you have a cat, do you? Huh. I suppose you spend money on that cat. Food. Litter. Collar & tag. The occasional visit to the vet. How much does that total over the life of a vet?
Let's say it costs you $3/week to feet your cat (it costs more if you feed it food that is actually healthy). And let's say you only spend $1/week on litter (poor Spot!). And let's say you never take your cat to the vet, ever. And no collar or tag, with info in case Spot ever gets lost. That's still $4/week. Or $200/year. Or $2000-$3000 over the life of a typical, well-cared-for cat. And since you're probably not as neglectful as I suggested in my calculations, you probably spend more. Reasonably regular vet visits, decent food, regular litter - you're probably spending at least $400/year. Maybe more.
So let's say Spot lives to the ripe old age of fifteen. That's $6000 you poured into Spot over the course of his/her life.
$6000. That's a fair amount of money. That might've immunized quite a few children in some third-world country - some of which have instead died from diseases for which they did not receive immunizations. It might have feed a starving child for years. It might've provided a decent shelter for a family exposed to the elements.
Seems to me you've made the choice. And, contrary to your claims, you prioritized your cat over 'a random stranger'.
Hey, I get it. You decided that your money was more important to supporting a pet cat for yourself, than for saving some child halfway around the world. I have two cats myself, so I totally get it.
Actually, he is my brother's cat, but I live with them. I feed him when my brother is out of town though.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 06-02-2014 at 10:39 AM..
Reason: Edited quote
Oh, so you have a cat, do you? Huh. I suppose you spend money on that cat. Food. Litter. Collar & tag. The occasional visit to the vet. How much does that total over the life of a vet?
Let's say it costs you $3/week to feet your cat (it costs more if you feed it food that is actually healthy). And let's say you only spend $1/week on litter (poor Spot!). And let's say you never take your cat to the vet, ever. And no collar or tag, with info in case Spot ever gets lost. That's still $4/week. Or $200/year. Or $2000-$3000 over the life of a typical, well-cared-for cat. And since you're probably not as neglectful as I suggested in my calculations, you probably spend more. Reasonably regular vet visits, decent food, regular litter - you're probably spending at least $400/year. Maybe more.
So let's say Spot lives to the ripe old age of fifteen. That's $6000 you poured into Spot over the course of his/her life.
$6000. That's a fair amount of money. That might've immunized quite a few children in some third-world country - some of which have instead died from diseases for which they did not receive immunizations. It might have feed a starving child for years. It might've provided a decent shelter for a family exposed to the elements.
Seems to me you've made the choice. And, contrary to your claims, you prioritized your cat over 'a random stranger'.
Hey, I get it. You decided that your money was more important to supporting a pet cat for yourself, than for saving some child halfway around the world. I have two cats myself, so I totally get it.
I choose my dog over some kid halfway around the world or even in the next state. He eats well, has a big yard, me all day/everyday, gets heartworm mds and flea/tick treatment and lots of other perks that go along with being my dog. I'm not ashamed to admit it and neither are the dozens of other people I know who prefer pets. I think getting older makes a pet an easier companion. My kid is grown and I prefer to be a bachelor.
I wish I had this dog - bull terrier - 30 years ago as he is a major league chick magnet.
Those sound like excuses for wanting to take care of a pet over a person. Because it's "too hard" and takes "too much effort."
Do you have put in all that effort when you don't need to? If a person or a couple doesn't have any kids but has pets and loves their pets and doesn't plan on having kids then what's the problem? Should they just have kids just to prove to you others that they can care for human beings?
I think people who complain about this type of thing, IMO are confusing increasing animal fanaticism with an increasing concern with animal rights. I haven't really personally witnessed people being attached to their pets in such an unhealthy manner.
A dog is not a child, period. They might love you but their internal life isn't nearly as complex nor are their demands for care nearly as pressing as a kid's. I read that 46 percent of woman and nearly as many men would save Fido over a strange human's life if it came down to it.
I certainly would. My dog is a loyal member of my family who would give his life for me without question. I can't say the same for some random stranger on the street.
Quote:
I support animal welfare and hate cruelty of any sort but isn't there something telling and disturbing about the fact animal abuse makes people demand the death penalty yet the same folk are so calloused to human suffering? Ray Lewis probably killed a person and nobody cares, while Michael Vick is hated more than Hitler.
Give it up. Ray Lewis was never accused of anything more than obstruction of justice, and eventually testified about what he witnessed. Michael Vick, on the other hand, is a degenerate sociopath who not only ran an interstate dog fighting ring, but admitted to personally torturing eight animals to death in some of the sickest ways he could imagine simply because these dogs were not vicious enough in the ring. He has also been linked to drug trafficking, criminal theft, spreading herpes and steroid abuse. Furthermore, if Virginia DA Gerald Poindexter wasn't such a homer, Vick would be serving a much-deserved 40 year sentence in state prison for criminal animal abuse.
Personally, I think there is much more telling and disturbing about someone who would actually defend the actions of this worthless POS.
Besides my wife, my 3 dogs are my family and get treated like it. I would certainly save their lives over some random stranger if it came down to it. They give me unconditional loyalty and love and greet me when I come home every day no matter how long I have been gone. In return, I walk them everyday, make sure they have good food and fresh water everyday, and treat them with kindness. Dogs are better and cheaper than kids any day.
They give me unconditional loyalty and love and greet me when I come home
every day no matter how long I have been gone. In return, I walk them everyday,
make sure they have good food and fresh water everyday, and treat them with
kindness.
Pets are guaranteed loyalists. They always show love and affection, like a baby. Children may not love you unconditionally. They may not greet you with open arms and enthusiasm every day past the age of 6. They need more than food and water and the occasional vet visit. They will disagree, talk back, give you headaches, may put your life in danger, live a lifestyle and associate with people that you do not approve or loathe, will give you heartaches, disappoint, disagree, excite, have a mind and opinion and life of their own unless they have some kind of condition that prevents them from ever being independent. A dog will always need care and attention an in return they will give you love and affection like an infant does. They aren't better than children, but they are easier in terms of care. I love dogs. I love children, but they aren't the same.
Besides my wife, my 3 dogs are my family and get treated like it. I would certainly save their lives over some random stranger if it came down to it. They give me unconditional loyalty and love and greet me when I come home every day no matter how long I have been gone. In return, I walk them everyday, make sure they have good food and fresh water everyday, and treat them with kindness. Dogs are better and cheaper than kids any day.
Yep. Wife and I never wanted kids. But we do have a dog that we both adore. We take very good care of him, and I would defend him fiercely if need be. But I've always loved dogs. I just 'click' with them.
What I don't understand is why some people think holding animals in such high esteem is wrong. What makes humans superior to animals? We all evolved together on this little planet. We are all stuck here together, so how about we quit acting like we are the only life form that matters? We are all animals, and are not above or better then them. We are different, but not better. Such thinking is actually offensive to me.
It's an interesting topic. Kindness to animals is often compared to kindness to children. Both are cute and defenseless. When humans grow up, they become no longer defenseless – and by some measure, no longer cute. Animals remain cute and defenseless over their entire lifetimes. Thus animals are for some people a subject of special deference.
As the OP implies, this can be taken to extremes. Starving puppies in some circles elicit more sympathy and call to action, than starving children. The children are somebody else's problem. The puppies are, well, our problem. And starving adults? Forget it… they're lazy bums (so goes this view).
As a child-free person, I sympathize with the desire of a child-free couple to have a pet and to treat that pet as their little darling. I sympathize… but don't share this view. Humans are "superior" to other animals for numerous physiological reasons, but the most obvious reason is that it's natural for every individual to prefer members of his/her own species. Were I to have been a dog, I would probably prefer dogs over humans, elevating canine needs over human needs, and canine welfare over human welfare. I do not support the Biblical or quasi-Biblical injunction for Man to treat all other animals as materiel for his pleasure and consumption. Still, I am not persuaded that there's an ontological or ethical equivalence of species, or that somehow human preference for other humans discriminates against animals.
I notice this especially with people who love dogs.
I love cats and dogs but I think it's ridiculous to consider your pet your "son" or "daughter" or even to value their life above a stranger's. It's almost like bestiality!
What's your reasoning for stating that a person forging a strong bond with an animal, and valuing that animal's life over that of a stranger, is "almost like bestiality"? With that logic, one could consider someone who values their children's lives over that of a stranger as borderline pedophilic. I would hardly think that's the case.
A dog is not a child, period. They might love you but their internal life isn't nearly as complex nor are their demands for care nearly as pressing as a kid's. I read that 46 percent of woman and nearly as many men would save Fido over a strange human's life if it came down to it.
No, a dog is not a child, but it is still a sentient being with the capacity to feel, emote, and learn. People have bonded with companion animals since the beginning of time. Plus, dogs, cats, and horses, for example, make their contributions to our lives in other ways besides companionship; the dog for protection, the cat for mousing, and the horse for transportation. And, IMO, just because a human child requires more care to achieve adulthood than does any other animal doesn't mean that, ipso facto, said child has more value than other beings.
I support animal welfare and hate cruelty of any sort but isn't there something telling and disturbing about the fact animal abuse makes people demand the death penalty yet the same folk are so calloused to human suffering? Ray Lewis probably killed a person and nobody cares, while Michael Vick is hated more than Hitler.
When has anyone convicted of animal abuse ever actually received the death penalty? Yet people can and do receive harsh penalties, up to and including the death penalty, for harming and killing humans. And Eagles fans seem to have conveniently forgotten about Michael Vick's transgressions since he started performing for their team.
If my cat died I'd be sadder than if a random stranger died but that's only because people die every day. I'd easily save any person before my cat if I had to choose, no questions asked. Even if they were a murderer or something.
I certainly wouldn't. You'd value a murderer's life, or that of a sex offender, over an innocent animal?
I think it's easy to love animals because they can't criticize you and you can project your own feelings and values onto them and imagine they agree with you on everything. I also think it's become popular to be a misanthrope and if something bad happens to a person the cynic speaks out and said "Ah, they must have had some skeleton in their closet to deserve it anyway". While if a pitbull rips apart a child to shreds, it's always blamed on the owner of the dog or worse yet the parent of the victim for not accommodating the dog's needs by constantly watching their kid.
And no parent on earth, ever, has looked at their infant child and said "He's going to be a football star" or "she's going to be a doctor someday"? People project their own feelings and values onto others all the time. And, as far as communicating displeasure, animals can and do, just not in the way to which we are accustomed. The same can be said for nonverbal, developmentally disabled humans and those who speak a foreign language. Are they, then, on the same level as animals?
To address your comment about people "always" blaming humans when one by an animal, there are numerous cases where an animal has been put down for, well, acting like an animal. The reputation of dogs like the pitbull is such that insurance companies will refuse to write a policy if someone owns that breed of dog.
I think there's also something decadent about loving animals more than people. We have plenty of food in grocery stores but honestly if sh*t really hit the fan I bet most people would eat their pets, as horrible as that sounds. Also rodents and other little creatures are cute until they start eating your food. I still get triggered from the time last year when I found three tiny little mice in my kitchen. I probably wouldn't bother trying to trap and release them if I found them due to disease fears, but luckily my cat is good at getting them.
I disagree with you. Even in areas where grocery stores aren't commonplace, people still keep animals as companions.
I don't believe in any religion-based human exceptionalism being an atheist but I think science has shown that the only animals that even approach our level of sentience are the great apes.
I think you are confusing sentience with cognitive ability. Sentience is the ability to feel, whereas cognition relates to the ability to reason.
Moderator note: Please don't place your answers within the previous poster's quotes again, it makes it too hard for other posters to quote you.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 06-02-2014 at 11:40 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
