you really fail at this

3/25/2010 1:52:15 PM

because i come to TWW to learn

3/25/2010 1:52:41 PM

you apparently go nowhere to learn

3/25/2010 1:53:24 PM

you apparently learn to go nowhere

3/25/2010 1:53:45 PM

I come to TWW so I can be called retarded and stupid because i have a different opinion than other users

3/25/2010 1:54:29 PM

as was pointed out, i didn't call YOU retarded or stupid...i called the statements retarded and stupid...the difference is subtle, but it's there

3/25/2010 1:55:55 PM

Learn to go nowhere, you apparently.

3/25/2010 1:57:02 PM

so my opinion itself is retarded and stupid, because it differs from yours.

ok, got it

3/25/2010 2:00:30 PM

Quote :

"so my opinion itself is retarded and stupid, because it differs from yours. ok, got it"

no, you obviously DON'T get it...your opinion is retarded and stupid because it's unrealistic, not because it's different from mine

one thing tww has taught me over years is to try not to make absolute statements because these oftentimes make you look foolish or are completely untrue/unrealistic due to their inflexibility

you, apparently, still haven't learned this

[Edited on March 25, 2010 at 2:03 PM. Reason : .]

3/25/2010 2:02:11 PM

Quote :

"OK, and where in this thread did she state that the cat's quality of life would be shit after the surgery? All she stated was that the cat already has issues, but nothing that will get any worse by having the surgery to save it's life. If you adopt an animal only to find out later that it has some medical problems you have to take care of, it's not ok to just trade it in for "one of the millions of cats out there that would be less trouble". If you are looking for "less trouble", then you shouldn't own a pet"

You are right, she didn't say that the cat's quality of life would be shit. I was just more or less adding to your statement is all. My general addition to your general statement. Working in animal research with a tox background, I do have a different mindset I guess *shrugs*

3/25/2010 2:09:33 PM

shelters arent overcrowded because of people surrendering their pets, djeternal. these animals are the first to be put down, so they do not add to overcrowding. they are overcrowded due to an out of control feral animal population and people neglecting to neuter their animals. regardless, the OP did not mention surrendering her ill animal to a shelter because she was unwilling to pay. choosing to have your pet's life ended due to its illness or injuries is still taking responsibility for its life. IF the OP decided to follow that path and then adopt a healthy animal from a shelter, she would spare 2 animals continued suffering, instead of possibly prolonging the suffering of one. thats why i find it ethically objectionable. I understand that you think this would dishonor the emotional bond between the two, but i respectfully disagree. The life she has described for her pet has been nothing but miserable so far. to prolong its life might prove to be cruel to both of them.

3/25/2010 2:12:10 PM

*GASP*

The LAST thing I would ever want is to look foolish on an internet message board

whatever will i do?

3/25/2010 2:21:13 PM

Quote :

"whatever will i do?"

continue to remain ignorant and learn nothing, i suppose

3/25/2010 2:23:14 PM

well now who wants that?

3/25/2010 2:25:21 PM

this thread is about ethics and morals. what exactly is the ethical code or moral framework you wish to ascribe to this situation, dj?

3/25/2010 2:29:13 PM

I blame the government.

If they would let chinese restaurants legally use cat in their cuisine, at least the cat overpopulation problem would become a non-issue. If korean food is ever in vogue, then dog overpopulation will be handled as well.

Unfortunately, chinese restaurants have to resort to locating themselves near vet clinics to get access to cat meat without raising red flags for the authorities (example, Ten Ten is right next to boulevard animal hospital).

3/25/2010 2:32:26 PM

Quote :

"this thread is about ethics and morals. what exactly is the ethical code or moral framework you wish to ascribe to this situation, dj?"

It's simple. In this situation, the cat in question is at risk for its life due to the negligence of the owner. So, the owner is obligated to do whatever is necessary to heal the animal.

If you don't have $3500 laying around, then put away your fucking sewing needles. Either that, or don't have cats.

It's just like when I blew the engine in my car because I didn't change the oil. I couldn't complain about the $3k it cost me for a new engine, because it was my own fucking fault for not getting a $25 oil change

[Edited on March 25, 2010 at 2:54 PM. Reason : a]

3/25/2010 2:51:28 PM

A pet is a material possession. When a material possession is in need of repair, its the owner's right to have it disposed of properly if the cost of maintaining is more than they're willing to spend. If you're willing to spend X to heal your cat, and the cost to heal it is X + 1000 dollars, then it's your right to cut your losses and have it put down.

3/25/2010 2:57:46 PM

Why not attempt to adopt the cat out to someone that would be willing to pay for the surgery? Why immediately jump to "cut your losses and kill it"?

3/25/2010 2:59:02 PM

Who the hell wants to buy a sick cat?

There's enough healthy ones out there with no home

3/25/2010 3:11:00 PM

^^i don't think there is much of a market for sick cats that cost $3000

3/25/2010 3:16:21 PM

I am still a little confused about *why* is the owner obligated to fix up the cat? Besides, your suggestion is a little bit ludicrous because it will preclude ALL of us from owning pets. The OP cant go back in time and put away the sewing needles. I guess it is still possible to not have cats, which is what her 2nd option was, but i am sure thats not what you intended.

Regardless of whatever reasoning makes it necessary for the owner to heal the animal at any cost, many accidents resulting from negligence are not willful. Increasing medical technology is making more and more therapies possible constantly, with larger and larger pricetags. If everyone must be prepared to "fix" their mistakes by limitless spending to save a pet hurt in an unforseeable accident, it puts pet ownership off limits to all but the elite, ultrawealthy people. What do you propose those of us who have unwittingly acquired pets for whom we are not able to afford the most extreme life-saving measures are to do with the animal lives we have already submitted to our care? Another thing to consider is that surgery of this scale is certainly not without its own risk of mortality.

Finally, saying the OP having surgery on her pet is "just like" you fixing your car, quite frankly, terrible. Firstly, they did not result from remotely the same circumstances. If we leave a needle and thread on a table in 100 homes across america, it almost certainly will not be eaten in every household. if we take 100 cars and do not change the oil, many of them will suffer engine failure. Furthermore, it is a well known fact that engine failure results from lack of oil, and this result was very predictable, while the pathological behavior of this cat is by definition outside the bounds of normality and impossible to predict. You were willfully negligent, while the OP was not.

I will assume that the unspoken part of your "moral code" is that you must fix your animal when your actions indirectly cause it harm, because you have some emotional bond. While animal and car mortality are both inevitable, you didnt "save" your car because you felt an emotional bond with it. you did that because you decided it was more economical than scrapping your vehicle and purchasing a newer one. You may have made that decision because you had 3k laying around or felt comfortable about your ability to pay back that money in a reasonable amount of time. unlike a cat, you could not acquire another "healthy" car for minimal money. and finally, no bystanders would deride you if you decided to scrap the car- or if you choose to sell it and get a new one, even if nothing is wrong with it. You have already clearly indicated that you would find it morally objectionable if someone decided to "trade in" their cat on a whim.

I dont mean to rail on your beliefs specifically, because plenty of other people have said things that are palpably wrong in this thread, but I was curious since you seem to be one of the few who dont have a preset limit in mind for pet healthcare spending. I asked because this thread is supposed to be about morality and ethics, and I didnt and I still don't think you can state exactly what your beliefs are on the subject.

[Edited on March 25, 2010 at 3:27 PM. Reason : ]

3/25/2010 3:26:03 PM

Ok, I'm definitely not reading that. I will just say you're right.

3/25/2010 3:36:03 PM

Quote :

"Why not attempt to adopt the cat out to someone that would be willing to pay for the surgery? Why immediately jump to "cut your losses and kill it"?"

thanks DJ, when my cat gets sick im mailin him to you so you can pay for it

or maybe ill take my sick cat to the front steps of the durham police station in a box, knock on the door and run off before someone answers it

i just wanna know where to get pet insurance honestly, i have a two year old healthy cat..do they check for pre existing conditions and shit

[Edited on March 25, 2010 at 3:43 PM. Reason : k]

3/25/2010 3:41:40 PM

Quote :

"do they check for pre existing conditions and shit"

not after the bill obama signed this week

3/25/2010 4:06:54 PM

Lemme get this straight. Eric, you're saying that if you can't afford any unexpected medical costs for a pet then you shouldn't have a pet. Using that logic I suppose I could say if you can't afford any unexpected medical costs for a child then you shouldn't have any offspring. Nevermind there are countless medical conditions that could run bills into the hundreds of thousands...



BigHitSunday, are you seriously this lazy/unresourceful? Not only are there multiple TWW threads on pet insurance, but I'm pretty sure by now you could have figured out what you want purely by typing "pet insurance" in over at Google. I'll give you something to start with; I used to use VPI pet insurance, but later decided it wasn't worth the cost.

[Edited on March 25, 2010 at 4:22 PM. Reason : k]

3/25/2010 4:22:10 PM

Quote :

"Using that logic I suppose I could say if you can't afford any unexpected medical costs for a child then you shouldn't have any offspring."

What's wrong with that logic? That's why you get insurance.

3/25/2010 4:34:16 PM

im just lazy and unresourceful


too lazy to read much further into your post

3/25/2010 4:42:15 PM

Quote :

"Lemme get this straight. Eric, you're saying that if you can't afford any unexpected medical costs for a pet then you shouldn't have a pet. Using that logic I suppose I could say if you can't afford any unexpected medical costs for a child then you shouldn't have any offspring. Nevermind there are countless medical conditions that could run bills into the hundreds of thousands... you're trolling."

fixed it for you Pat

[Edited on March 25, 2010 at 4:57 PM. Reason : a]

3/25/2010 4:53:01 PM

3/25/2010 4:53:42 PM

yeah

you're trolling now that you got your point soundly shoved back up your ass where it came from

3/25/2010 4:56:25 PM

ahhhh yes, then revert back to my Chatterbox post a few hours ago where I said I was trolling you morons

I believe the exact quote was "Trolling in the lounge is so much more fun than trolling in chit chat."

or something along those lines

[Edited on March 25, 2010 at 5:01 PM. Reason : a]

3/25/2010 4:57:52 PM

Always love the "but I was trolling the whole time!" retort when it comes AFTER the argument

3/25/2010 5:06:14 PM

i stated it before i even started. have qntmken produce the chatterbox history

3/25/2010 5:07:03 PM

Fuck the chatterbox

Its not canon for TWW history

3/25/2010 5:09:56 PM

an alibi chatterbox posting

convenient

3/25/2010 5:11:18 PM

Heh, Green Jay is making me feel guilty that I did go with the surgery instead of adopting a new cat instead.

Anyways, pet insurance I have is http://www.gopetplan.com/. Haven't claimed anything yet, so we will see if they're any good.

3/25/2010 7:38:01 PM

Quote :

"A pet is a material possession. When a material possession is in need of repair, its the owner's right to have it disposed of properly if the cost of maintaining is more than they're willing to spend. If you're willing to spend X to heal your cat, and the cost to heal it is X + 1000 dollars, then it's your right to cut your losses and have it put down."

shut the fuck up

it seems like this entire thread is just people pretending to be at far ends of the spectrum just for the sake of trying to start an argument

anyhow the first argument i would make is that an animal has the right to exist outside of a human decision whether to keep it alive or not so that would suggest to just put the animal back out in the wild if you don't want to pay for it but if you took the cat early on and totally trained it's lifestyle that it definetly wouldn't survive in the wild than you have some responsibility to try to give it a life

and it looked like some guy on the first page was suggesting all pets are the same in terms of existence but that's just stupid, a cat is clearly on a different level of intelligence and being than a goldfish or a gecko as I think the guy said (if geckos are in fact very intelligent and aware than I'll take it back)

what I would say to the original poster is if you could make a strong argument that the cat was going to die or wouldn't really have a chance to survive independently than you have the right to terminate, but for something like the needle I think you do have a responsibility since it was your doing, age should also be a factor



[Edited on March 25, 2010 at 10:47 PM. Reason : k]

3/25/2010 10:46:52 PM

Quote :

"it seems like this entire thread is just people pretending to be at far ends of the spectrum just for the sake of trying to start an argument "

good grief

why on earth would you make accusations like that?

3/25/2010 11:08:16 PM

I absolutely love my fellow Americans. I remember reading somewhere some widower had a six figure estate and willed like half of it to her 10 year old sickly dog, while her three kids/grandkids split the other half.

Spending the kind of money some folks on here and in America on Spot or Buster is fine, just don't complain about the economy, taxes, job status, etc. ever, ever.

i'd love to get the reaction from someone in another part of the globe fighting off starvation, disease, and civil war learning about the intense stress American's face over their pets preventable illnesses

3/25/2010 11:17:04 PM

Quote :

"and it looked like some guy on the first page was suggesting all pets are the same in terms of existence but that's just stupid, a cat is clearly on a different level of intelligence and being than a goldfish or a gecko as I think the guy said (if geckos are in fact very intelligent and aware than I'll take it back)"

The guy on the first page was right. All animals are the same in terms of their right to exist....namely they have none. You evidently don't recognize that there is more than one view on the subject. The way I see it, the fact that you note (that cats are more intelligent than geckos) is absolutely irrelevant.

If I had them, I would not owe greater medical care to a pet chimp than I would owe to a pet ladybug. They would both by my property. As I said, the only moral imperative here is to avoid purposeless animal torture.

3/25/2010 11:23:41 PM

well, if animals do have a right to exist, they certainly should have the same right across the board. the only people who can defend that position are vegans who brush the ground before they take every step, i guess. but to take this tack creates very interesting questions for the rights of humans, and i decided i didnt care about the answer to those quite a while ago.

clearly, what "is right" and what is done on a daily basis are quite different indeed, and I don't care a bit that sylvershadow saved her cat, or if she decides to eat it, as long as it doesnt suffer unduly first.

3/26/2010 11:38:23 AM

i didn't read this thread.

but to me, this is like having a disabled child and saying "fuck it, let him die. I can just fuck some other dood and hope the next child isn't a cripple."

3/26/2010 11:40:47 AM

cool, does that mean we can legalize cannibalism?

3/26/2010 11:44:10 AM

No one would want to eat the cripple

3/26/2010 11:48:14 AM

tainted meat

3/26/2010 12:37:07 PM

This thread is so 2 days ago...

3/26/2010 1:00:00 PM

If you had chosen to let the needle-swallowing cat be euthanized I would not fault you for it. It's a tough call. I don't think owning an animal is an automatic, unlimited responsibility to fix it at all costs. Responsible pet ownership is more than just throwing money at a sick or wounded pet. There's definitely a line that's unique to each pet and situation.

I've gotten a cockatiel $600 dollars worth of stitches (worth every penny) and I've had a budgie with seizures euthanized rather than stress him out with tests and make the end of his little life miserable (also worth every penny).

3/27/2010 7:55:02 PM

Quote :

"to me, this is like having a disabled child and saying "fuck it, let him die. I can just fuck some other dood and hope the next child isn't a cripple.""

Wat.

3/27/2010 10:36:03 PM