You're right. That's why it needs to be explicitely pointed out that it
should not be done with pets because once people accept the aberration
with pets it's not all that difficult to migrate it to babies and kids.

S.Simon


"Scott Vernon" wrote in message ...

What's sad is that some people do that with babies & kids nowadays.

SV

"Simple Simon" wrote ...

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.

What about cows and pigs?


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
news
You're right. That's why it needs to be explicitely pointed out that it
should not be done with pets because once people accept the aberration
with pets it's not all that difficult to migrate it to babies and kids.

S.Simon


"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...

What's sad is that some people do that with babies & kids nowadays.

SV

"Simple Simon" wrote ...

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.

Depends upon whether they're pets or farm animals.
Intended use is a big factor. To be considered
reneging one must breach a promise - one makes
no promise of sanctuary to farm animals raised for food.
That's not to say these animals shouldn't be treated as
humanely as possible while being raised and dispatched
as humanely as possible when their time comes.

S.Simon

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message ...
What about cows and pigs?


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
news
You're right. That's why it needs to be explicitely pointed out that it
should not be done with pets because once people accept the aberration
with pets it's not all that difficult to migrate it to babies and kids.

S.Simon


"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...

What's sad is that some people do that with babies & kids nowadays.

SV

"Simple Simon" wrote ...

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.

Who decided that dogs & cats get treated better than other animals?.

SV

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

Depends upon whether they're pets or farm animals.
Intended use is a big factor. To be considered
reneging one must breach a promise - one makes
no promise of sanctuary to farm animals raised for food.
That's not to say these animals shouldn't be treated as
humanely as possible while being raised and dispatched
as humanely as possible when their time comes.

S.Simon

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
What about cows and pigs?


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
news
You're right. That's why it needs to be explicitely pointed out that
it
should not be done with pets because once people accept the aberration
with pets it's not all that difficult to migrate it to babies and
kids.

S.Simon


"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...

What's sad is that some people do that with babies & kids nowadays.

SV

"Simple Simon" wrote ...

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.

Cats and Dogs are a primary food source in many countries.

Why can you kill a pig with no tears and yet you cry like a big baby when
someone offs a cat?

Hypocrite!

CM

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
|
| Depends upon whether they're pets or farm animals.
| Intended use is a big factor. To be considered
| reneging one must breach a promise - one makes
| no promise of sanctuary to farm animals raised for food.
| That's not to say these animals shouldn't be treated as
| humanely as possible while being raised and dispatched
| as humanely as possible when their time comes.
|
| S.Simon
|
| "Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
| What about cows and pigs?
|
|
| "Simple Simon" wrote in message
| news | You're right. That's why it needs to be explicitely pointed out that
it
| should not be done with pets because once people accept the aberration
| with pets it's not all that difficult to migrate it to babies and
kids.
|
| S.Simon
|
|
| "Scott Vernon" wrote in message
| ...
|
| What's sad is that some people do that with babies & kids nowadays.
|
| SV
|
| "Simple Simon" wrote ...
|
| 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

What about women? Intended use could mean anything.

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

Depends upon whether they're pets or farm animals.
Intended use is a big factor. To be considered
reneging one must breach a promise - one makes
no promise of sanctuary to farm animals raised for food.
That's not to say these animals shouldn't be treated as
humanely as possible while being raised and dispatched
as humanely as possible when their time comes.

S.Simon

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
What about cows and pigs?


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
news
You're right. That's why it needs to be explicitely pointed out that
it
should not be done with pets because once people accept the aberration
with pets it's not all that difficult to migrate it to babies and
kids.

S.Simon


"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...

What's sad is that some people do that with babies & kids nowadays.

SV

"Simple Simon" wrote ...

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.

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

snip
That's not to say these animals shouldn't be treated as
humanely as possible while being raised and dispatched
as humanely as possible when their time comes.

So, are you saying that you should pay good money to a vet to ease their
passage into the next world? $100 could feed an African baby for about two
years. Would it not be better to put your sick pet into a weighted sack,
and throw it into the river, so that you could donate the $100 to an African
charity??

In other words, is three minutes of suffering for a dumb pet worth two
years of life for a human??



Regards


Donal
--

Oh shut up, you sniveling, bleeding-heart, liberal fool!

If you could read you'd know that's NOT what I wrote.

I wrote it's the pet owner's personal responsiblity to kill his
pet if the pet is severely injured and in pain and has no
chance to live through its injuries. I say leave the vet out of
it unless there is a question as to the severity of the injuries
being death causing. I think any intelligent person realizes
if and when his pet is suffering badly and has no chance of
recovering. This is when a real man will take the responsiblity
of ending his pet's suffering without further ado. The method
of terminating a pet's life should be left up to the individual
but it should be fast and humane so the animal never knew
what hit it.

To take a kitten who's going blind to the vet to have her
killed is to abdicate one's responsiblity and obligations
in more ways than one.

S.Simon




"Donal" wrote in message ...

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

snip
That's not to say these animals shouldn't be treated as
humanely as possible while being raised and dispatched
as humanely as possible when their time comes.

So, are you saying that you should pay good money to a vet to ease their
passage into the next world? $100 could feed an African baby for about two
years. Would it not be better to put your sick pet into a weighted sack,
and throw it into the river, so that you could donate the $100 to an African
charity??

In other words, is three minutes of suffering for a dumb pet worth two
years of life for a human??



Regards


Donal
--

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Oh shut up, you sniveling, bleeding-heart, liberal fool!

If you could read you'd know that's NOT what I wrote.

You said that they should be treated "as humanely as possible".

I strongly disagree. Pets are NOT human, and we should not confuse them
with humanity.


Far too many city dwellers ascribe human emotions to animals. They think
that an animal with a brain the size of a pea is capable of the same degree
of "awareness" as a human. This is rubbish!

Apes and elephants are the only other species that display any recognition
of the concept of "death". There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest
that any other species has any feelings on the matter at all.



I wrote it's the pet owner's personal responsiblity to kill his
pet if the pet is severely injured and in pain and has no
chance to live through its injuries.

You said that the pet should be treated "humanely". You are incapable of
realising that your pet cat only tolerates your company because you are a
source of food. If you don't believe me, then don't feed the cat for a
week. He/she will soon return to its feral state, and spit at you whenever
you come within spitting distance.

Regards


Donal
--

You don't even have to stop feed them. One of our cats was feral, she's been
"domesticated", if we let her sneak out she'll often bring home her kill for
the evening and leave it on the front porch. When she was a kitten she got a
hold of a large bunny, the thing was screaming as she dragged it along by
the neck, she only turned it loose when my wife startled her by yelling at
her. Last year the alpha male corgi got a hold of a newborn rabbit and
practically swallowed it whole. All of these animals are well-fed. I think
most cats and dogs have bonds with their owners that go a little beyond
being a source of food.
John Cairns
"Donal" wrote in message
...
You said that the pet should be treated "humanely". You are incapable of
realising that your pet cat only tolerates your company because you are a
source of food. If you don't believe me, then don't feed the cat for a
week. He/she will soon return to its feral state, and spit at you
whenever
you come within spitting distance.

Regards


Donal
--