nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Pets.

kneemos

Is it time to ban pets as they use up dwindling resources?and how do pet owners justify spending money on a pet when it could go to the needy?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

SimonTemplar

OP, do you own a smart phone or a tablet or a laptop or a portable music player or a HD TV or any designer clothes or anything above the minimum needed to survive adequately? Do you spend money on drink or cigarettes or fine food?

If you answer yes to any of these, ask yourself your own question.

Sulla Felix

TheBegotten wrote: »

We'd be fine if people would embrace cheaper, more efficient industrial farming methods and genetic engineering...but that's a whole different kettle of three-eyed fish

Three eyed fish? Nah, I want twelve-breasted chickens. (and wimmins

)

Artful_Badger

I agree the OP's reasoning is off but lets not lose sight of the fact that getting rid of pets is a good idea.

This breeding of animals as commodities and selling them into servitude as mere objects of entertainment (a lot of the time for children) has gone on long enough. Its time to start actually thinking rationally about this instead continually providing a market to exploit animals which inevitably leads to untold abuses.

Simply wanting something isnt grounds to have it. This practice of breeding, owning, selling, training animals for entertainment is morally corrupt and you all know it !!

DamagedTrax

BeerWolf wrote: »

OP, you might be surprised but a lot of perfectly fine food is thrown away by farmers because of their appearance, and retail markets not buying them... henceforth this food is just dumped...

Link

Link 2

We are not in any danger of being close to a food shortage... thus all your current concerns are thus void.

and this - police used to hold crowds back from perfectly good food being disposed of.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/04/01/food-a01.html

Kintarō Hattori

kneemos wrote: »

Is it time to ban pets as they use up dwindling resources?and how do pet owners justify spending money on a pet when it could go to the needy?

Why don't you live a humble life and everything that you don't need to survive you donate to the needy.............................. no I didn't think so.

Once you earn your way it's up to you to decide how you spend your money. What resourced do pets take up exactly?

oldyouth

I'll spend my money on what I want to, thank you very much, whether it is my pet, the needy or both.

DamagedTrax

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I agree the OP's reasoning is off but lets not lose sight of the fact that getting rid of pets is a good idea.

This breeding of animals as commodities and selling them into servitude as mere objects of entertainment (a lot of the time for children) has gone on long enough. Its time to start actually thinking rationally about this instead continually providing a market to exploit animals which inevitably leads to untold abuses.

Simply wanting something isnt grounds to have it. This practice of breeding, owning, selling, training animals for entertainment is morally corrupt and you all know it !!

thats only one aspect of pet ownership, not every pet owner thinks that way. most of us regard our pets as family (NOT a source of entertainment to be discarded when we bore of them) and they are treated accordingly.

the same could be applied to people who have kids just to get housing or benefits. should we ban the human race too because of a handful of imbeciles?

Sulla Felix

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I agree the OP's reasoning is off but lets not lose sight of the fact that getting rid of pets is a good idea.

This breeding of animals as commodities and selling them into servitude as mere objects of entertainment (a lot of the time for children) has gone on long enough. Its time to start actually thinking rationally about this instead continually providing a market to exploit animals which inevitably leads to untold abuses.

Simply wanting something isnt grounds to have it. This practice of breeding, owning, selling, training animals for entertainment is morally corrupt and you all know it !!

Why is it morally corrupt? You can't just declare it to be so.

danniemcq

oldyouth wrote: »

I'll spend my money on what I want to, thank you very much, whether it is my pet, the needy or both.

ah a cat then!?

Reindeer

My GF has a pet AND she's needy. The needy have pets. What's the problem?

DamagedTrax

Reindeer wrote: »

My GF has a pet AND she's needy. The needy have pets. What's the problem?

i think she's two timing both of us :eek:

Artful_Badger

DamagedTrax wrote: »

thats one aspect of pet ownership. the same could be applied to people who have kids just to get housing or benefits. should we ban the human race too because of a handful of imbeciles?

Like wise people shouldnt be having kids willy nilly. But you cant ban the human race and I'm not proposing a ban on animals existing. I'm proposing a ban on breeding them and selling them. If that results in the animals disappearing so be it.

ncmc

danniemcq wrote: »

wow slow down, that stuff is barely ok for dogs to eat never mind people.

That’s very true. Had to feed my dog Pedigree in an emergency a few weeks back and the colour, smell and consistency of her poo afterwards was disgusting. It’s total rubbish and also a false economy. A 10kg dog is recommended to eat two cans a day, I can feed my dog good quality kibbles for about €1 per day.

My dog costs me about €14 per week. That includes food, grooming every three months, vet say twice a year, insurance and dog licence. It’s nothing compared to the love and companionship she offers in return. I’d give up every luxury in my life before I’d give up my dog.

Menas

This thread is one of my pet hates.

DamagedTrax

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Like wise people shouldnt be having kids willy nilly. But you cant ban the human race and I'm not proposing a ban on animals existing. I'm proposing a ban on breeding them and selling them. If that results in the animals disappearing so be it.

wow, you're just a cuddly bundle of happiness arent you? :eek:

[Deleted User]

kneemos wrote: »

Is it time to ban pets as they use up dwindling resources?and how do pet owners justify spending money on a pet when it could go to the needy?

same as you can justify using the internet for posts, when the money from that could go to the needy

My pet is part of my family, and so, he will be looked after the same as anyone in my family circle, before any outside cause.

ncmc

danniemcq wrote: »

wow slow down, that stuff is barely ok for dogs to eat never mind people.

[Deleted User]

Dogs aren't entertainment, they're part of the family.

Artful_Badger

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Why is it morally corrupt? You can't just declare it to be so.

Sure I can, I can declare anything I want. A market for animals being bought and sold results in the suffering of countless animals through abuses. You can say its down to the scummy few but its not. Plenty of animals are unwanted for various reasons and end up in the pound or on the streets. And there will always be scummers in society and as long as animals are treated as commodities they will be abused by scummers out to seek a profit.

Considering all that is unnecessary and simply fills a market for animals to be bought as objects of entertainment. I considering it to be morally corrupt.

Mark Twain

While my cat, Mugabe, sometimes lets off some absolute stinkers of farts; I don't see them as contributing massively to overall climate change. Certainly no worse than his owner after a gallon and a half of stout.

Frank Black

Pets probably do provide a useful service to humanity,
Most pet owners are sad, lonely people who need a dumb animal to validate them and give them the 'love' they are unable to get from a normal human relationship.
I mostly just feel sorry for people who feel the need to own a pet.

Artful_Badger

DamagedTrax wrote: »

wow, you're just a cuddly bundle of happiness arent you? :eek:

I'm as cuddly and happy as as the ext guy but I just dont see enough justification for this when I examine it to make up for the countless abuses on these poor creatures.

"I want a kitten, kittens are cute" isnt enough imo to allow a market to breed and sell kittens to whoever wants them. Because for every cute kitten that end up in a home with nice people there's likely a lot more who get a raw deal.

DamagedTrax

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Sure I can, I can declare anything I want. A market for animals being bought and sold results in the suffering of countless animals through abuses. You can say its down to the scummy few but its not. Plenty of animals are unwanted for various reasons and end up in the pound or on the streets. And there will always be scummers in society and as long as animals are treated as commodities they will be abused by scummers out to seek a profit.

Considering all that is unnecessary and simply fills a market for animals to be bought as objects of entertainment. I considering it to be morally corrupt.

responsible breeding is in place to better the breed. responsible breeders dont make money on litters. the costs of breeding far outway the returns on the allowed 3 litters per lifetime of a bitch.

i think you're mixing up breeders with puppy farmers. the former are needed so that we can eliminate the latter.

Sulla Felix

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Sure I can, I can declare anything I want.

That's not a particularly persuasive arguement though, is the point I'm trying to make. I can declare it moral in that case and we're at an impasse. Actually, I declare it very, very moral, so I win.

BeerWolf

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Sure I can, I can declare anything I want. A market for animals being bought and sold results in the suffering of countless animals through abuses. You can say its down to the scummy few but its not. Plenty of animals are unwanted for various reasons and end up in the pound or on the streets. And there will always be scummers in society and as long as animals are treated as commodities they will be abused by scummers out to seek a profit.

Considering all that is unnecessary and simply fills a market for animals to be bought as objects of entertainment. I considering it to be morally corrupt.

Put the blame on the countless unlicensed morons, and [puppy] farms, that breed the animals, or those that haven't neutered their pet and let them wander about, NOT people that own them... those unlicensed lot are the primary cause for unwanted animals, and should therefore be heavily fined.

You proposing the solution to just outright have pets out of the picture is just beyond idiotic.

Frank Black wrote: »

Pets probably do provide a useful service to humanity,
Most pet owners are sad, lonely people who need a dumb animal to validate them and give them the 'love' they are unable to get from a normal human relationship.
I mostly just feel sorry for people who feel the need to own a pet.

I feel sorry for people like you who think like this... :rolleyes:

pharmaton

me dog is part of the family, would be lost without her, got her when my daughter was a teenager and she helped bridge a gap, kept my sanity and gave us both something else to heap affection on. (which made the troublesome teenage years very less troublesome) She eats what we eat so we don't need to buy extra, I could buy a bag of kibble and have it for 3 months. Vet once or twice a year otherwise about 100 euro a year to keep. Couldn't put a price on her really, she's invaluable to us. (and she's sitting on my feet as I write this, so she's saving money by keeping my energy costs down

)

Artful_Badger

Sulla Felix wrote: »

That's not a particularly persuasive arguement though, is the point I'm trying to make. I can declare it moral in that case and we're at an impasse. Actually, I declare it very, very moral, so I win.

True but I have posted quite a bit on my reasons for seeing it as such. I didnt just say it was wrong and leave it at that.

Bannasidhe

Frank Black wrote: »

Pets probably do provide a useful service to humanity,
Most pet owners are sad, lonely people who need a dumb animal to validate them and give them the 'love' they are unable to get from a normal human relationship.
I mostly just feel sorry for people who feel the need to own a pet.

I feel sorry for people who think animals are 'dumb' and that love needs inverted commas as if only humans are capable of it.

jimgoose

I keep the needy as pets. Best of both worlds, and they're able to do errands.

wp_rathead

Mark Twain wrote: »

While my cat, Mugabe, sometimes lets off some absolute stinkers of farts; I don't see them as contributing massively to overall climate change. Certainly no worse than his owner after a gallon and a half of stout.

Your cats name is Mugabe?