Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

The Internet: 1 Cat Abuser: 0Follow

#27 Feb 17 2009 at 8:28 AM Rating: Decent
Pensive wrote:
Quote:
You mean some of you are hypocritically saying that an animal's life is the same worth as a human's?


I do, but not hypocritically.

Quote:
Noo, you wouldn't be saying that or you wouldn't advocate getting rid of a pet because you're having a baby or throw the cat outside to fend for itself because little Billy's parents can't be assed to get the kid treated for allergies.


I don't.

My mother's deathly allergic to cats, but we've had ours for 16 years (she got worse over time). We deal with it. Getting rid of the cat would mean getting rid of me.


Pen, it wasn't aimed at you. Some of the posters here in the Asylum have said they'd throw out a family pet if little Suzy turned out to be allergic. I just find it ironic that they are now saying a cat's life is worth as much as a humans in this situation but not the other.

I agree with you. If it turned out KatieSpawn were allergic, I'd haul their asses down to the nearest allergy specialist to be treated. I'm totally saying a pet is a family member and should be treated as such.

Also, this guy is a sick **** and I hope he gets treatment.
#28 Feb 17 2009 at 8:29 AM Rating: Good
Katielynn wrote:
You mean some of you are hypocritically saying that an animal's life is the same worth as a human's? Noo, you wouldn't be saying that or you wouldn't advocate getting rid of a pet because you're having a baby or throw the cat outside to fend for itself because little Billy's parents can't be assed to get the kid treated for allergies. Smiley: disappointed


You aren't honestly trying to equate beating a cat to death to giving it away to a good home because someone is terribly allergic to it... are you?
#29 Feb 17 2009 at 8:35 AM Rating: Good
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Katielynn wrote:
You mean some of you are hypocritically saying that an animal's life is the same worth as a human's? Noo, you wouldn't be saying that or you wouldn't advocate getting rid of a pet because you're having a baby or throw the cat outside to fend for itself because little Billy's parents can't be assed to get the kid treated for allergies. Smiley: disappointed


You aren't honestly trying to equate beating a cat to death to giving it away to a good home because someone is terribly allergic to it... are you?


I'm equating the life of a cat or any pet for that reason to the life of a human. Both are just as valuable. You wouldn't give a kid away because you catch a cold every time they come back from daycare, you wouldn't throw the first kid outside to fend for itself because you just birthed your second. I don't think it's fair that you would do it to your pets.
#30 Feb 17 2009 at 8:35 AM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Oh well.. I guess we could get yelled at together.

I know that my opinion on animals is generally reviled. There were some epic threads in the oot about fires and saving animals and such.

Quote:
You aren't honestly trying to equate beating a cat to death to giving it away to a good home because someone is terribly allergic to it... are you?


I think that she was aiming that at tricky. Something along the lines of failing to recognize that animal's lives can be just as valuable as human's, or at least very, very valuable, if not quite as much.
#31 Feb 17 2009 at 8:35 AM Rating: Decent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Katielynn wrote:
If it turned out KatieSpawn were allergic, I'd haul their asses down to the nearest allergy specialist to be treated. I'm totally saying a pet is a family member and should be treated as such.

Also, this guy is a sick @#%^ and I hope he gets treatment.

I think you're sick. Forcing your child to suffer a lower quality of life, with no vote in the decision, so that you can have a furry plaything?

Unless the allergy treatment is magic bullet, buy a goldfish and let the kid be happy.

#32 Feb 17 2009 at 8:35 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
Human life >>>>> Animal life

Was that unexpected?

I haven't sat down and quantified it, really.


How intellectually lazy of you.
#33 Feb 17 2009 at 8:41 AM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Quote:
Human life >>>>> Animal life

Was that unexpected?

I haven't sat down and quantified it, really.


How intellectually lazy of you.

Sorry, I don't feel like performing actuarial philosophy about every issue. If a situation came up where I had to decide how many chimps I would be willing to strangle to save one human life, I guess I'd sit down and quantify it. In the meantime, I'll just decide on a case-by-case when I happen to hear about one.

#34 Feb 17 2009 at 8:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
katie wrote:
You wouldn't give a kid away because you catch a cold every time they come back from daycare,


.....

Well, most people probably wouldn't.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#35 Feb 17 2009 at 8:44 AM Rating: Good
Katielynn wrote:
I'm equating the life of a cat or any pet for that reason to the life of a human. Both are just as valuable. You wouldn't give a kid away because you catch a cold every time they come back from daycare, you wouldn't throw the first kid outside to fend for itself because you just birthed your second. I don't think it's fair that you would do it to your pets.


Yeah, that's sort of silly. To equate a pet to your child.

So, let me ask you. If your dog bit and drew blood on your new baby, would you get rid of the dog? What if it bit someone elses child and drew blood?
#36 Feb 17 2009 at 8:50 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Quote:
Human life >>>>> Animal life

Was that unexpected?

I haven't sat down and quantified it, really.


How intellectually lazy of you.
Animals, or more appropriately 'pets' are possessions. Their value is based on the joy or companionship or use or whatever that a person gets from IT, rather than it being measured as an individual with rights, idea, possibilities, responsibilities etc.

Really, its an apples and oranges comparison.


____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#37 Feb 17 2009 at 8:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
I'm gonna be honest. Katie's reaction is normal. She doesn't have kids. I found so many of my friends talking about how they couldn't imagine loving their kids more than their dogs-- and then they had kids and couldn't imagine feeling that way. Realistically, she's talking hypothetically. If she really had a sick child, wheezing and asthmatic, I bet she'd get rid of the cat. If she didn't, then I would see her as being inhumane. Eh, it's easy to be attached to your pet when all you have is a pet.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#38 Feb 17 2009 at 8:57 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
Animals, or more appropriately 'pets' are possessions. Their value is based on the joy or companionship or use or whatever that a person gets from IT, rather than it being measured as an individual with rights, idea, possibilities, responsibilities etc.

Really, its an apples and oranges comparison.


Ah-huh. Ah-huh.

You didn't answer the question, unless calling something a possession really does diminsh its rights in your eyes (let me make it clear - this is a bit stupid). If it was legal and you were my slave, would your life be worth less than mine? Besides, there are animal rights, just not ones equivalent to human rights.

Let em ask again, what is the difference in the worth of human and animal life based on? It's not a hard question.
#39 Feb 17 2009 at 8:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
trickybeck wrote:
If a situation came up where I had to decide how many chimps I would be willing to strangle to save one human life, I guess I'd sit down and quantify it.
I'm going to put you in one just to find out the answer.

In general terms, I rate humans well above animals. I like animals and all but they ain't people. But I can't get behind inflicting pain upon either just for shits & giggles. Not that I think Tricky was advocating that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#40 Feb 17 2009 at 9:00 AM Rating: Decent
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Katielynn wrote:
I'm equating the life of a cat or any pet for that reason to the life of a human. Both are just as valuable. You wouldn't give a kid away because you catch a cold every time they come back from daycare, you wouldn't throw the first kid outside to fend for itself because you just birthed your second. I don't think it's fair that you would do it to your pets.


Yeah, that's sort of silly. To equate a pet to your child.

So, let me ask you. If your dog bit and drew blood on your new baby, would you get rid of the dog? What if it bit someone elses child and drew blood?


First, you should NEVER leave any dog alone with a child. Second, depending on the circumstances ie:kid pulling at the dog's tail and hitting dog; then either the dog would be put through remedial training or the kid and dog would be separated via baby gate until the child is old enough to understand that it's not a punching bag. If the dog snapped unprovoked a trip to the vet to check out the dog's health (just like when your nice old mom starts getting mean and snappy you take her to the doc for a check up). There is always a reason and with the proper precautions it shouldn't ever be an issue.

#41 Feb 17 2009 at 9:02 AM Rating: Good
Katielynn wrote:
First, you should NEVER leave any dog alone with a child. Second, depending on the circumstances ie:kid pulling at the dog's tail and hitting dog; then either the dog would be put through remedial training or the kid and dog would be separated via baby gate until the child is old enough to understand that it's not a punching bag. If the dog snapped unprovoked a trip to the vet to check out the dog's health (just like when your nice old mom starts getting mean and snappy you take her to the doc for a check up). There is always a reason and with the proper precautions it shouldn't ever be an issue.



Hmmm. Ok. Let's say that, for whatever reason, every time your dog gets close to your kid, whether you're holding your kid or whatever, your dog snaps and tries to bite it. Let's say it's jealous, let's say it's pissed, let's say it thinks your kid is prey since it's smaller than he is. But no matter what you do, it still snaps at your kid.

So, which do you choose?
#42 Feb 17 2009 at 9:07 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Quote:
Animals, or more appropriately 'pets' are possessions. Their value is based on the joy or companionship or use or whatever that a person gets from IT, rather than it being measured as an individual with rights, idea, possibilities, responsibilities etc.

Really, its an apples and oranges comparison.


Ah-huh. Ah-huh.

You didn't answer the question, unless calling something a possession really does diminsh its rights in your eyes (let me make it clear - this is a bit stupid). If it was legal and you were my slave, would your life be worth less than mine? Besides, there are animal rights, just not ones equivalent to human rights.
Yes, if you were my slave my life would have more value than yours.

Animal's don't have rights. There are capricious anti-cruelty laws for us, not for the animals. If animals had rights do you think we'd be eating them, wearing them?

Quote:
Let em ask again, what is the difference in the worth of human and animal life based on? It's not a hard question.
I can only tell you again, that it's not a direct comparison - not even close.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#43 Feb 17 2009 at 9:09 AM Rating: Decent
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Katielynn wrote:
First, you should NEVER leave any dog alone with a child. Second, depending on the circumstances ie:kid pulling at the dog's tail and hitting dog; then either the dog would be put through remedial training or the kid and dog would be separated via baby gate until the child is old enough to understand that it's not a punching bag. If the dog snapped unprovoked a trip to the vet to check out the dog's health (just like when your nice old mom starts getting mean and snappy you take her to the doc for a check up). There is always a reason and with the proper precautions it shouldn't ever be an issue.



Hmmm. Ok. Let's say that, for whatever reason, every time your dog gets close to your kid, whether you're holding your kid or whatever, your dog snaps and tries to bite it. Let's say it's jealous, let's say it's pissed, let's say it thinks your kid is prey since it's smaller than he is. But no matter what you do, it still snaps at your kid.

So, which do you choose?


Dogs are pack animals. They understand pack hierarchy, it takes training and being consistent. I would keep both but keep them separated, only allow dog on leash near child until you teach the dog that the child is higher on the totem pole than the child. You don't throw a new pet in with the old one and let them duke it out, it's the same with a child.
#44 Feb 17 2009 at 9:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kavekk wrote:
what is the difference in the worth of human and animal life based on?
The secret of fire.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#45 Feb 17 2009 at 9:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Hmmm. Ok. Let's say that, for whatever reason, every time your dog gets close to your kid, whether you're holding your kid or whatever, your dog snaps and tries to bite it. Let's say it's jealous, let's say it's pissed, let's say it thinks your kid is prey since it's smaller than he is. But no matter what you do, it still snaps at your kid.

So, which do you choose?


Anna got it right. Katie doesn't understand because she's never had kids. You can't justify a dog mauling a kid. Even if the kid pulls on his tail, or hits it, or whatever. I absolutely love dogs, I really do, but surely the welfare of the kid is more important than the welfare of the dog.

As for Kavekk's question, my personal answer is level of consciousness.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#46 Feb 17 2009 at 9:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Katielynn wrote:
Dogs are pack animals. They understand pack hierarchy, it takes training and being consistent. I would keep both but keep them separated, only allow dog on leash near child until you teach the dog that the child is higher on the totem pole than the child. You don't throw a new pet in with the old one and let them duke it out, it's the same with a child.
Are you seriously going to avoid the question forever by asserting that there's no possible way in Katie-Land for a pet dog to bite a child of yours?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#47 Feb 17 2009 at 9:13 AM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
Are you seriously going to avoid the question forever by asserting that there's no possible way in Katie-Land for a pet dog to bite a child of yours?


All you have to do is keep the kid in an electric steel cage. Not only is it relatively humane, it also gives your dog plenty of roaming space!


Edited, Feb 17th 2009 5:13pm by RedPhoenixxx
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#48 Feb 17 2009 at 9:16 AM Rating: Decent
Jophiel wrote:
Katielynn wrote:
Dogs are pack animals. They understand pack hierarchy, it takes training and being consistent. I would keep both but keep them separated, only allow dog on leash near child until you teach the dog that the child is higher on the totem pole than the child. You don't throw a new pet in with the old one and let them duke it out, it's the same with a child.
Are you seriously going to avoid the question forever by asserting that there's no possible way in Katie-Land for a pet dog to bite a child of yours?


It is possible. If my dog were to bite my child unprovoked, I would not get rid of either. I would take the blame for not properly supervising their interaction and keep them separated from there on out. If it came to the point that my dog and child could never be together because of jealousy on the dogs part, the dog would have a dog run built that separated child and dog permanently. Dog would still be interacted with by my husband and I but the two (dog/child) would never be allowed to interact.

#49 Feb 17 2009 at 9:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
I'm sure that'll be a great comfort to the child as she grows up hideously deformed as a result of being mauled by the dog she has to see "interacting" with you and your husband while she sits inside.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#50 Feb 17 2009 at 9:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Samira wrote:
I'm sure that'll be a great comfort to the child as she grows up hideously deformed as a result of being mauled by the dog she has to see "interacting" with you and your husband while she sits inside.
Inside the dog?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#51 Feb 17 2009 at 9:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Eventually.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 347 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (347)