You're not very intelligent, are you? Either that or you're just
an illogical contrarian. I did not show compassion for Minx.
I did not know the little animal so how can I show compassion
for an unkown entity.

What I did show was loathing for a very large subset of people
who assume the obligation of a pet and then because the animal
does not live up to their expectations or becomes more trouble
than assumed these people abandon or have their pet killed.

They then expect sympathy from people for their "loss" not even
understanding that they suffered no "loss". Losing something and
throwing it away on purpose are two different things. Minx was
thrown away. She was not lost. Why is this so hard to understand?

I think it's easy to understand but the same subset of people who
abandon and kill and call it losing don't allow themselves to see the
truth because the truth hurts and recognizing it as the truth would
require attitudes to change. Better to lie than to change. Better to
call killing losing than to be truthful. This is sickness pure.

S.Simon


"The Carrolls" wrote in message ...
You show all this compassion for a dear departed pet, but cannot show
compassion at the difficult decision made? You elevate an animal above a
person in your actions. It is not a lack of morals or concience, but the
conviction to those morals that allows a person to end the suffering of a
dear friend, as difficult as it can be. You on the otherhand use the
opportunity to ridicule and be hurtful rather than show empathy and
compassion, or even disinterest.. But that is in keeping with your
character.
"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Negative!

What I cannot abide, however, is people who write things
that indicate they consider their pets as just another throwaway
toy. There is all too much of this crap going on these days. What's
worse these people expect support and sympathy for their
moral decriptitude.

People move into an apartment or house where pets are not
allowed in the lease so they dump their pets out of the car
along the road somewhere. Or, people meet another person
who is alergic to their pets so they get rid of the pet at the
pound. The pet gets sick and it will be expensive to treat
so they have the vet kill it and on and on. People have many
excuses but what it all boils down to is FAILURE to accept
obligations because it is inconvenient to do so.

This indicates a total lack of conscience, morals and respect
for life in general. This is true psychotic behavior but so many
people exhibit it that it has blurred the norm. But, still, people
will continue to attempt to justify it by claiming they killed their
pet for whatever reason when the ONLY valid reason to ever
kill a pet is if it is suffering greatly and has no chance to live.
Only then can it be considered humane to kill the animal.
A real man will do the killing himself - not take the animal
to the vet which is another failure to live up to obligations.

It is never humane to abandon a pet. It is never humane to
regeg on your obligations to your pet. You willingly take on
the obligation. It shows a lack of morals to change your mind.
Too many people these days have no morals. They do whatever
is most convenient at any given time but what disgusts me is
they lie to themselves and attempt to justify this lack of morals
with lame excuses that simply don't make any logical or moral sense.

If my words can sway one opinion and save one animal they are
worth it. I don't care what people think of me for writing these
words.

S.Simon - loves and respects animals


"The Carrolls" wrote in message
...
Boyoh boy, you must have hated recess when you were a kid.
"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
The Navigator's Lament

I had a kitten and I loved her so much
She was playful and gentle and so nice to touch.
But alas she went blind
And in my warped mind
A handicapped cat might never survive
And I fancied her better off dead than alive.
So I KILLED her . . .



S.Simon - loves animals