I realise you're all moving away from/shutting down this topic, and that's fine by me, but take into account I've only just woken up here in Ireland and read the replies, and I feel I need to make my final thoughts on this before we end it. So apologies if I'm opening a scabbing wound but some of the posts have really annoyed me. Therefore:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls
It boils my blood that people think they are such good care takers that animals are better off with them. :O Let's face it we dominated multiple species for our pleasure, they aren't symbiotic relationships.
|
This is pure bull. Every pet I have ever owned since I was small has got total love and a great life, and when they died were treated with respect. I know people who get a dog for instance, stick it out the garden and never take it for walks or give it any attention. I know people who put dogs in sheds. I know people who malnourish their pets. How dare you intimate I'm not a better pet owner than some, or that some people can not be more attuned to owning a pet? There is a huge, huge difference between someone who buys a pet for the novelty and then when the novelty wears off, dumps it, either literally or just leaves it to its own devices, and someone for whom a pet becomes very much a treasured part of the family.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland
The dog descended from friendlier wolves who used a relationship with humans as a survival tactic. Not so much dominated in that case. As for cats, I think they're the ones who domesticated us.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Engine
No, humans would all be dead and eaten if they could do that. Cats would cut out the middlemen.
|
They would if they could stay awake long enough!
Anyway, cats need us for affection and playing and things. And to open doors. And tins. You ever seen a cat try to use a can opener? Pathetic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth
i mean it is obvious to me that i wasted 70 bucks. i'm not going to dwell on it though.
|
Yeah but you're still saying wasted. It wasn't wasted if it had the potential to have helped ease the cat's suffering, and that's what you're missing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Engine
Ironically, you are agreeing with JWB. The point is that animals should die when the time is right for them to die. People who are sad when animals die naturally, and want to prolong their lives, have some weird hangups. It's selfish to want a loved animal to live beyond its natural life. I think you agree?
|
I think that's been covered, but it seems JWB did not want to "waste" the money to try to see if the cat could be helped; he'd rather keep his thirty-odd bucks even if it would have been a possibility that the cat might have had a chance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Engine
You absolutely will not get banned for that, I do it all the time. Use your words.
|
Depends of course on how you use it. "**** you Engine
" would not get you banned but **** you Engine! You're a stupid **** who doesn't know anything and I hate you" er, would... it's all in the execution and the meaning.
I've nothing specifically against JWB but once someone's, if not cruelty then apathy towards animals becomes known to me, I no longer want to converse with them. So I won't be too interested in anything he says from now on, now that I know what sort of a person he is. You cross that line with me, there's no way back.