RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue!

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue!

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue!

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/10/2005 11:56:12 PM

SadistDave

Posts: 801
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

Hey! Great responses!

Disease... now theres another consideration. Way to go guys. That is a very interesting consideration. Too bad it's not really an issue.

The only way a dead animal (or person) is going to pose a threat of disease if you shoot it during an evacuation is if the animal is already sick. You don't just die and instantly become a haven for every microbe on the planet. That takes time. More time than an evacuation should take...

I suppose you'll argue that the increase in dead puppies will increase the possibility of contamination during a clean-up effort. Most people wear masks, gloves, and whatever other safety gear they can find when digging through the wreckage of a disaster because there is already a risk of disease from the carcasses people and animals who may be rotting. Even those who don't wear these things because of the bodies tend to wear them because of all the waste and litter.

Even looking at the effect on the ecology the factors are minimal. I believe I mentioned that earlier.

So you see, the disease issue doesn't really exist. At least not in the way you portray it in your posts.

quote:

But to say that allowing for pet rescue is the same as committing murder is off the charts, for real.

Frankly I see no reason why that is any more off the charts than those here who have said that refusing to take them is murder. As for the laws protecting animals from mistreatment, then I will only say that if you take responsibility for a pet then you should be the one responsible for saving it. If you aren't responsible enough to do so, then you are the one to blame, NOT the federal government

The problem is that pet owners want to have it both ways. You want to be responsible for your pets when everything is right with the universe, but not when the shit hits the fan. When something like a fire or flood happens, suddenly your pet is everyone elses responsibility too. Demanding that people to risk their lives because you suddenly can't handle things is not taking responsibility.

Sorry, that just doesn't fly.

As for instant orphans... (That was cute incidentally) I'm sorry, but if your parents don't want you to live because the family dog can't come too, you need better patents anyway.

-SD-

(in reply to dekley)

Post #: 41

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/11/2005 6:42:57 AM

onceburned

Posts: 2117
Joined: 1/4/2005
From: Iowa
Status: offline

I suppose its a good thing to be discussing this. Comparing opposing values is generally healthy for a democracy.

But I don't think that Congress is even considering (at least not yet) having the federal government involved with pet rescue. I think the sentence mentioned in the news article is based upon this press release: National Emergency Animal Rescue Coalition: An Open Letter to the 109th Congress. I am not sure if any member of Congress even read it.

So we may be discussing a non-issue.

(in reply to SadistDave)

Post #: 42

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/11/2005 9:29:59 AM

pantera

Posts: 210
Joined: 1/7/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: onceburned

But I don't think that Congress is even considering (at least not yet) having the federal government involved with pet rescue.

I think congress should be discussing tax-payer's pocket rescue instead- ;)

(in reply to onceburned)

Post #: 43

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/11/2005 1:37:33 PM

luvdragonx

Posts: 388
Joined: 6/22/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Disease... now theres another consideration. Way to go guys. That is a very interesting consideration. Too bad it's not really an issue.

The only way a dead animal (or person) is going to pose a threat of disease if you shoot it during an evacuation is if the animal is already sick. You don't just die and instantly become a haven for every microbe on the planet. That takes time. More time than an evacuation should take...

I suppose you'll argue that the increase in dead puppies will increase the possibility of contamination during a clean-up effort. Most people wear masks, gloves, and whatever other safety gear they can find when digging through the wreckage of a disaster because there is already a risk of disease from the carcasses people and animals who may be rotting. Even those who don't wear these things because of the bodies tend to wear them because of all the waste and litter.

Um, you have heard of rats, right? You know, those pesky rodents that carry infectious diseases and parasites? They snack on carcasses. Oh, they make a nice snack for a hungry cat or dog too.

quote:

Frankly I see no reason why that is any more off the charts than those here who have said that refusing to take them is murder. As for the laws protecting animals from mistreatment, then I will only say that if you take responsibility for a pet then you should be the one responsible for saving it. If you aren't responsible enough to do so, then you are the one to blame, NOT the federal government

The problem is that pet owners want to have it both ways. You want to be responsible for your pets when everything is right with the universe, but not when the shit hits the fan. When something like a fire or flood happens, suddenly your pet is everyone elses responsibility too. Demanding that people to risk their lives because you suddenly can't handle things is not taking responsibility.

You seriously believe these folks WANT to turn the responsibility of saving their pets over to the government? Disaster strikes and all of a sudden that makes the pet owner irresponsible? Fine then, everyone who was stuck in New Orleans is irresponsible and shouldn't be eligible for rescue. They should have been responsible for themselves secured their own safety. Pets aren't taxpayers so they have no say. Neither are minors, many of the elderly and the disabled. So screw them too.

Like I said before, I think it's a sad state of affairs. It sucks for people and pets alike and there is no easy answer. Do I think that pets should take precedence over people? In most cases, no, but sometimes it would depend on the person. Do I think it's crazy for people to want to rescue their pets? Nope. When you take 'offense' at the proposed rescue of animals, it says something to me. So does advocating shooting people who value life - be it animal or human - in a way that you obviously don't. You say pet owners should be responsible to the end, yet you condescend the pet owner who DOES do that by staying with their pets instead of being rescued.

As for wasted tax dollars.......come on, you're kidding right? Like spending tax dollars on something that doesn't seem to make sense to everyone hasn't been done before. Somebody benefits from it somewhere, it's just not always us.

_____________________________

Never Without Love

(in reply to SadistDave)

Post #: 44

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/11/2005 1:43:22 PM

dekley

Posts: 56
Joined: 2/22/2004
Status: offline

quote:

I also propose that this new law state that parents who do not allow their children to be evacuated because of the pet issue be shot on sight as well.

quote:

As for instant orphans... (That was cute incidentally) I'm sorry, but if your parents don't want you to live because the family dog can't come too, you need better patents anyway.

What a great concept. Perhaps we could carry that a bit further. For example, if your parents don't want you to live because they're driving over the speed limit with you in the car, you need better parents anyway, and we could shoot them on sight too.

And have you even considered the economic benefits of your proposal? Just think of all the opportunities for undertakers, embalmers, grave diggers, and casket makers - not to mention gun manufacturers and ammunition makers too.

And orphanages. I hear they're almost extinct nowadays. Why instead of a chicken in every pot, we could have an orphanage in every county. The job opportunities are almost endless.

And crematoriums... why the list just goes on and on.

Truly amazing indeed.

Dekley

_____________________________

Until one has loved an animal, a part of one's soul remains unawakened...

~Anatole France~

(in reply to SadistDave)

Post #: 45

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/11/2005 11:59:44 PM

SadistDave

Posts: 801
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

So we may be discussing a non-issue.

I hope so, but I doubt it since it seems the ASPCA is "urging Congress" to pass a law stating that pets must be rescued with their owners.

quote:

Like I said before, I think it's a sad state of affairs. It sucks for people and pets alike and there is no easy answer. Do I think that pets should take precedence over people? In most cases, no, but sometimes it would depend on the person. Do I think it's crazy for people to want to rescue their pets? Nope. When you take 'offense' at the proposed rescue of animals, it says something to me. So does advocating shooting people who value life - be it animal or human - in a way that you obviously don't. You say pet owners should be responsible to the end, yet you condescend the pet owner who DOES do that by staying with their pets instead of being rescued.

Actually, I agree with most of what you say. Frankly, I wouldn't have an issue with this though if it weren't for the fact that logistics don't support saving every pet in every emergency.

Here's a visual for you. Go to a professional football game. Pick out the 10 largest vehicles in the parking lot. Now try to figure out how you will "rescue" all the fans in attendance in 1 hour with those 10 vehicles. Remember, these are emergency conditiond, so everyone has to be inside the vehicle to survive the rescue attempt. Your task is to drive the fans from the stadium doors to the closest gas station. I honestly don't think you have a chance to "save" everyone.

Guess what? Everyone left in the stadium after 1 hour is dead. You tried your best, but there just wasn't enough space in the vehicles to save everyone.

Now, just pulling a number out of my ass, lets say that 50% of them have a pet of some kind. How many more people do you think would not be "saved" if you had to transport pets with their owners?

Now remember, in New Orleans the rescue volunteers had about 92 boats to cover the entire city. They estimated that there were 10,000 residents still in the city to rescue. Thats around 108 people for each boat to locate and rescue before they had to abandon the effort. One of the volunteers thought it was a good day when he hooked up with the military and rescued 25 people...

Pop quiz: What is 108 - 25? Anybody?

What I find offensive is that pet owners seem to think that their animals are more important than human lives. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I don't give a whooping fundt if pet owners want to die with their pets, but to say that their pets are more important than the lives of other people is reprehensible, immoral, and irresponsible.

Not all evacuations are under the same conditions. Not all disasters are the same. If it is possible to save animals, great! If it's not, deal with it.

quote:

What a great concept. [snipped for brevity] Truly amazing indeed.

Dekley, I think the Readers Digest has a page for people like you.

-SD-

(in reply to dekley)

Post #: 46

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/12/2005 12:35:18 PM

dekley

Posts: 56
Joined: 2/22/2004
Status: offline

quote:

I also propose that this new law state that parents who do not allow their children to be evacuated because of the pet issue be shot on sight as well.

quote:

As for instant orphans... (That was cute incidentally) I'm sorry, but if your parents don't want you to live because the family dog can't come too, you need better patents anyway.

quote:

Dekley, I think the Readers Digest has a page for people like you.

-SD-

I really don't think the Readers Digest is into randomly murdering people whom you don't agree with. Seems like another fellow who got pretty famous about 60 or 70 some odd years ago, I think his name was Adolf something or other, might have had some of your same ideas, all sanctioned by the State, BTW.

Dekley

_____________________________

Until one has loved an animal, a part of one's soul remains unawakened...

~Anatole France~

(in reply to SadistDave)

Post #: 47

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/12/2005 12:43:57 PM

onceburned

Posts: 2117
Joined: 1/4/2005
From: Iowa
Status: offline

Isn't there an old Usenet rule that when people start comparing their opponents to Hitler, its a sign that the thread has degraded to the point where it needs to be closed?

(in reply to dekley)

Post #: 48

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/12/2005 12:57:27 PM

SadistDave

Posts: 801
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Isn't there an old Usenet rule that when people start comparing their opponents to Hitler, its a sign that the thread has degraded to the point where it needs to be closed?

Well, I hope they don't lock this one just because dekley can't come up with a reasonable case to make his point and has to resort to name calling. If he wasn't a half-wit, I might be offended, but lets face it, all he has done so far is make personal jabs at me instead of presenting a logical arguement that holds water.

It's actually kind of refreshing. Reading his posts is sort of like looking at life through the eyes of a child, albeit a mean-spirited one.

-SD-

(in reply to onceburned)

Post #: 49

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/12/2005 2:28:59 PM

dekley

Posts: 56
Joined: 2/22/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Well, I hope they don't lock this one just because dekley can't come up with a reasonable case to make his point and has to resort to name calling. If he wasn't a half-wit, I might be offended, but lets face it, all he has done so far is make personal jabs at me instead of presenting a logical arguement that holds water.

It's actually kind of refreshing. Reading his posts is sort of like looking at life through the eyes of a child, albeit a mean-spirited one.

quote:

has to resort to name calling. If he wasn't a half-wit

Hmmm... I think you better reread the thread to see who resorted to name calling.

quote:

all he has done so far is make personal jabs at me

What??? I cann't believe you just said that. I was simply agreeing with you. Better reread the thread again. I thought we were friends. Now I ask you, what kind of a thank you is that?

quote:

It's actually kind of refreshing. Reading his posts is sort of like looking at life through the eyes of a child,

Hey... it's kind of refreshing going through a second childhood too. Just wait... You'll find out some day.

quote:

albeit a mean-spirited one

Hmmm... better reread the two quotes listed below to determine the mean-spirited one here.

quote:

I also propose that this new law state that parents who do not allow their children to be evacuated because of the pet issue be shot on sight as well.

quote:

As for instant orphans... (That was cute incidentally) I'm sorry, but if your parents don't want you to live because the family dog can't come too, you need better patents anyway.

-SD-

Sorry SadisticDave, but something about being "shot on sight" just rubs me the wrong way. I thought I could get that message through to you with a little humor. I was wrong. I'll leave you with one final thought. Just remember, some of us are going to be shooting back.

I rest my case. It's your party now.

Dekley

_____________________________

Until one has loved an animal, a part of one's soul remains unawakened...

~Anatole France~

(in reply to SadistDave)

Post #: 50

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/12/2005 4:11:43 PM

mystictryst

Posts: 125
Joined: 9/6/2005
Status: offline

I'm not even sure I should respond to this, because quite frankly, I spent a great deal of time crying after the hurricane because I was worried about people and especially, the animals. I lamented to my Master that I would die before leaving my kids behind in any situation. Master tried to comfort me by telling me that we were lucky - we would have enough money to get out of "dodge" before any disaster struck. And I argued with him - he wasn't seeing the point. I heard that nearly 30% of all New Orleans residents live below the poverty level (37 million Americans across all the United States). Most couldn't afford the tank of gas, even if they had the car. "What if we were poor?" I'd ask. I decided I'd die with the kids and not leave town.

You see, I probably cannot sway anyone to see it from a different point of view. Minds have been made up. Animals are property, chattle - not worthy of a second thought, and that is your right. Think what ever you like.

But as judgements are passed on a defenseless animal (fyi - not all dogs are swimmers, so many would drown), think of this.

Children, animals, spouses - these are all decisions we make.

I decided to be with my partner. We decided to adopt our kids. We decided to be financially responsible for them. Vet bills, food, shelter, everything.

But every month, hundreds of dollars are taken from my cheque to support all the human children. I don't really mind paying my part for little Joey's schooling or health care, as hopefully, little Joey will become a productive member of society... But what if I refused? I don't have human kids, why should I support everyone elses? It was Mr. & Mrs. X decision to have children - why I should I pay one red cent because of their choice?

That aside, I think that part of the problem with society is this ease with which life (regardless of species) is tossed aside.

If any posters who have children (human), imagine that relationship with them. The devotion, the undying love, the defient protection, the joy and happiness, the overwhelming sense of responsibility. All those feelings are the exact same feeling I feel for my "furry" kids. I wouldn't let anything ever hurt them and I would die, hands down, for them. They are my world. Absolutely. Think of your children, imagine their deaths, that feeling? I get it to when I think of my "furry" kids dying.

Just an aside.. Most dogs have the intellect and emotional maturity level of a 2 year old human child. A cat is around 14 months. Would anyone ever walk away from a two year old? Expect a 14 month old to fend for themselves?

< Message edited by mystictryst -- 10/12/2005 4:15:12 PM >

(in reply to SadistDave)

Post #: 51

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/12/2005 11:17:12 PM

SadistDave

Posts: 801
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Just remember, some of us are going to be shooting back.

There we go! Now you're on to something dekley. Survival of the fittest. Glad to see I've finally got you on board here.

-SD-

(in reply to dekley)

Post #: 52

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/13/2005 6:49:44 AM

pantera

Posts: 210
Joined: 1/7/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mystictryst

I heard that nearly 30% of all New Orleans residents live below the poverty level (37 million Americans across all the United States). Most couldn't afford the tank of gas, even if they had the car. "What if we were poor?" I'd ask.

Mystic,

I take statistics about poverty with a grain of salt. When I see what people in this country call "poverty" I can't help but think: Many people around the world wish they were "that poor"-

Not only that: when I see the opportunities that exist FOR EVERYBODY in this country, I can't help but think that poverty in this country is something we choose, with a much smaller percentage than 30, being people that really can't help themselves (as is the case for mental illness, etc)-

Listen: it sounds beautiful to talk about "the poor" and "their sufferage", but it is a lot more honest to say that most of us choose to be where we are in life.

And I'm glad it's that way. This means we ARE in control of our lives. It doesn't matter if I'm born a poor black female, it is within my power to change that in the future.

Some of my clients can't speak English, but they are becoming property owners and provide a decent living for their families. Why? because they make good choices and their work ethics are excellent. Some of them can't read or write!!!! yet, they are buying houses... and they don't call themselves poor, they call themselves lucky.

Some of them got to this country 10 years ago without a penny- and today they are medical doctors.

And not everybody is blessed with smarts and talent. But if you work hard, and make good choices you WILL succed.

quote:

Animals are property, chattle - not worthy of a second thought, and that is your right. Think what ever you like.

They are... but they are worthy of a second thought...by their owners, by people who care and want to volunteer their time and donate their money to rescue. This doesn't mean that taxpayer's money should be used in emergency situations to rescue people's property.

You may look at it as rescuing animals...but you would be setting the precedent that it is OK for the government to use force to confiscate some people's property (tax dollars) to save some other people's property (pets)- and this is unacceptable.

It's funny to me how most of us here want the government to respect our civil liberties and not to infringe upon our rights when it comes to sex, freedom of expression, etc...but do not hesitate to ask the government to violate the rights of some citizens to benefit others. Because that is what we are doing asking for pet rescue with tax payers money.

We are free to rescue the pets... WITH PRIVATE MONEY-

< Message edited by pantera -- 10/13/2005 6:50:07 AM >

(in reply to mystictryst)

Post #: 53

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/13/2005 11:14:22 AM

luvdragonx

Posts: 388
Joined: 6/22/2005
Status: offline

quote:

It's funny to me how most of us here want the government to respect our civil liberties and not to infringe upon our rights when it comes to sex, freedom of expression, etc...but do not hesitate to ask the government to violate the rights of some citizens to benefit others. Because that is what we are doing asking for pet rescue with tax payers money.

Ya know, if I could say definitively that the government hasn't already done just that - used influence and taxpayer dollars to benefit a select group - I would agree wholeheartedly. My taxes are used for things I don't want all the time - doesn't change anything.

_____________________________

Never Without Love

(in reply to pantera)

Post #: 54

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/13/2005 2:15:08 PM

SadistDave

Posts: 801
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Ya know, if I could say definitively that the government hasn't already done just that - used influence and taxpayer dollars to benefit a select group - I would agree wholeheartedly. My taxes are used for things I don't want all the time - doesn't change anything.

You're right, it doesn't change anything. Neither does crying over spilled kibble. Pets will continue to be saved whenever possible, and left to die when their rescue is logisticly unreasonable. So whats your point?

If so many people seem to "feel" that their pets are human, or that the government should care, why hasn't some group like the ASPCA proposed a federal tax on pets based on the pet owners income to offset the public burden they would represent in a disaster? If pets are really worth saving, I don't see why pet owners would have a problem assuming a pet tax of 10% of the owners income per pet.

For all you "my pet is my child" types, 10% of your income is pretty mild compared to the cost of raising a child. Since a child will grow up and hopefully become a productive member of society, I don't see why you would have a problem assuming your "childs" tax burden as a way to justify tax dollars spent on it's behalf.

I think there would be a hue and cry in this country, the likes of which haven't been seen since the American Revolution. I firmly believe that any pet owner foolish enough to advocate such a tax would probably be hunted down like a dog (pun intended) by other pet owners.

-SD-

(in reply to luvdragonx)

Post #: 55

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/13/2005 8:30:57 PM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

At the expense of sounding like an asshole (I dont really care) the deal is is that they are fucking animals......so what...the government cant take care of humans so who gives a fuck about cats...they make good insides of gloves........and not much more.

Feed the people, be your brothers keeper.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to SadistDave)

Post #: 56

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/13/2005 9:01:49 PM

luvdragonx

Posts: 388
Joined: 6/22/2005
Status: offline

quote:

You're right, it doesn't change anything. Neither does crying over spilled kibble. Pets will continue to be saved whenever possible, and left to die when their rescue is logisticly unreasonable. So whats your point?

My point? My last response wasn't directed at you, but since you brought it up.....you 'walked' into this thread with a 'fuck everybody who doesn't see it my way' attitude, so I responded. Since then, a lot of what you said has made sense. Save pets when they can be saved - which isn't what you said initially, but you're saying it now, so fine.

I pay school taxes. I don't have any kids in public school. I'm not allowed to keep that money just because I don't use the services it's being garnered for. I'll probably never use most of the highways and streets that my taxes are used to improve. There are many other things that I'm sure I wouldn't agree to (war, space programs) that my taxes are being used for in the name of public service and there isn't a damn thing I can do about it and likely it will always be that way. But I'm not calling anyone a murderer. Nor am I crying.

Personally, if I were in a situation where I was forced to choose between turning my pets loose and staying with the hope everything would be okay, I'd put them down myself. That way I'd KNOW what their fate would be and I'd KNOW I did it out of love and my conscience would be clear.

Get it now?

< Message edited by luvdragonx -- 10/13/2005 9:58:25 PM >

_____________________________

Never Without Love

(in reply to SadistDave)

Post #: 57

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/13/2005 10:04:06 PM

anopheles

Posts: 241
Joined: 6/23/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

quote:

Ya know, if I could say definitively that the government hasn't already done just that - used influence and taxpayer dollars to benefit a select group - I would agree wholeheartedly. My taxes are used for things I don't want all the time - doesn't change anything.

You're right, it doesn't change anything. Neither does crying over spilled kibble. Pets will continue to be saved whenever possible, and left to die when their rescue is logisticly unreasonable. So whats your point?

If so many people seem to "feel" that their pets are human, or that the government should care, why hasn't some group like the ASPCA proposed a federal tax on pets based on the pet owners income to offset the public burden they would represent in a disaster? If pets are really worth saving, I don't see why pet owners would have a problem assuming a pet tax of 10% of the owners income per pet.

For all you "my pet is my child" types, 10% of your income is pretty mild compared to the cost of raising a child. Since a child will grow up and hopefully become a productive member of society, I don't see why you would have a problem assuming your "childs" tax burden as a way to justify tax dollars spent on it's behalf.

I think there would be a hue and cry in this country, the likes of which haven't been seen since the American Revolution. I firmly believe that any pet owner foolish enough to advocate such a tax would probably be hunted down like a dog (pun intended) by other pet owners.

-SD-

I don't understand your arguement, honestly. The government doesn't have to care about your pet, but why have a pet if you don't care about them? We pour so much money into so many programs that don't benefit us an any way that we can experience on a daily basis. I've talked to several evacuees from New Orleans (i work a few blocks from an evacuation center in Texas), and they don't have a damned thing besides the few belongings that they have in their backpacks. Imagine how much more hopeful their new life (none that I have talked to have plans to return to New Orleans) would be for them if they had their dog, cat, bird, ferret, etc with them for some comfort through the weeks of pain and heartache that they have experienced. I can't personally relate, because I've never gone through such an ordeal, but it can't be easy.

_____________________________

You've got me so high, my shoes are scraping the sky -- for my Luvdragon

(in reply to SadistDave)

Post #: 58

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/13/2005 11:27:42 PM

SadistDave

Posts: 801
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

My point? My last response wasn't directed at you, but since you brought it up.....you 'walked' into this thread with a 'fuck everybody who doesn't see it my way' attitude, so I responded. Since then, a lot of what you said has made sense. Save pets when they can be saved - which isn't what you said initially, but you're saying it now, so fine.

Yep, I walked into the thread with that attitude. Sure did. I'd expect anyone else with an ounce of sense to do it too. My initial post was a bit over the top. It was intended to be. It was an irrational response to an irrational idea.

Oddly enough though, I find my original post more defensable from a logical and moral standpoint than the notion that there should be a law requiring pets to be rescued at tax payers expense so their owners will have warm fuzzies.

quote:

Personally, if I were in a situation where I was forced to choose between turning my pets loose and staying with the hope everything would be okay, I'd put them down myself. That way I'd KNOW what their fate would be and I'd KNOW I did it out of love and my conscience would be clear.

Thanks for clearing all that up for me. Incidentally, I obviously misunderstood the tone of your post. I would like to apologize for that. I am truely sorry.

I don't know how to clear up my thoughts on this to you anopheles. I thought I was pretty clear about pets being property and expecting them to be treated otherwise by the government is an ill concieved notion. Since you mention that many of these people have nothing, and due to circumstances beyond their control are unable to take care of themselves, I'm curious about something.

Many of them will be bouncing around between private charities and social services for months, perhaps even years, trying to recover from their loss. How is it a benefit to anyone other than the owners if they now have a pet that they can't take care of either? If pets are to become welfare recipients in the future, I think it's only fair that the owners pay a tax on their pets.

-SD-

(in reply to anopheles)

Post #: 59

RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue! - 10/14/2005 4:09:33 PM

pantera

Posts: 210
Joined: 1/7/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: luvdragonx

Ya know, if I could say definitively that the government hasn't already done just that - used influence and taxpayer dollars to benefit a select group - .... My taxes are used for things I don't want all the time -

You are 100 % right- unfortunately-

(in reply to luvdragonx)

Post #: 60

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: HELP Katrina Pet Victims - Govt REFUSES rescue!

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109